Perjury in Employment Tribunal
barcyn
I'm pursuing a claim for unfair dismissal against my former employer,
without using a solicitor because of lack of funds.
During the first day of evidence the employer stated, on oath, the
names of two clients who she said had approached her to report that I
was trying to "poach" them. I knew this was untrue, so I have checked
with those people and they both deny that they have ever spoken to her
on such an issue and they agree that I never tried to poach them. They
are both willing to confirm the truth either in writing and/or in
person.
The second day of hearing is due to be held in October, for me and the
other side's Barrister to make final submissions.
My question is how should I bring these facts to the attention of the
Tribunal? I know that there are Rules of Procedure but I can't find
any reference to the method for doing this.
Thanks for any help.
--
barcyn
spitfire
Hi, If you can get them to submit witness statements saying that this
was not true then this is ideal. (You will need to give the other side
a copy of these before the Tribunal, when you exchange docs, but if you
have already exchanged then simply say you wish to include them in the
bundle and take them to the Tribunal as disputed documents). Even if
they did back out of giving these simply put in your witness statement
that you have spoken to them and they expressly deny it.
As a side issue, if you have buildings/contents home insurance, check
to see if you have legal expenses cover. If not, the Citizens Advice
Bureau may assist you.
Congratulations on having the bottle to go for it, you will generally
find that Tribunals are very supportive of litigants in person and this
can often go in your favour.
Good luck!
Carole
--
spitfire
Don Aitken
The tribunal is not concerned with whether perjury was committed -
that is a matter for the police. But it definitely *is* concerned with
whether the alleged poaching attempts took place or not. I presume
that the evidence on both sides has been concluded; in that case you
will require the Tribunal's leave to call further evidence, which, in
a case like this, is unlikely to be refused. Ask for leave in writing,
well before the hearing date, enclosing the relevant witness
statements, which you should also supply to the other side. If such
evidence is heard and believed, it will cast a big question mark over
the whole of the employer's evidence.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Roland Perry
Sep 2009, barcyn <barcyn....@legalbanter.co.uk> remarked:
>During the first day of evidence the employer stated, on oath, the
>names of two clients who she said had approached her to report that I
>was trying to "poach" them.
Isn't that hearsay? A witness telling the court what someone else told
them? Why didn't the *employer* need to get a witness statement from the
two clients (which would then be where any potential perjury lies).
--
Roland Perry
Stuart A. Bronstein
>>During the first day of evidence the employer stated, on oath,
>>the names of two clients who she said had approached her to
>>report that I was trying to "poach" them.
>
> Isn't that hearsay? A witness telling the court what someone
> else told them? Why didn't the *employer* need to get a witness
> statement from the two clients (which would then be where any
> potential perjury lies).
Barcyn stated that he didn't have a solicitor. As a result he
probably didn't object to the evidence. I'd think the court would be
justified in hearing the evidence if there was no objection to it.
neverwas
> them? Why didn't the *employer* need to get a witness statement from
> the two clients (which would then be where any potential perjury
> lies).
Didn't the Civil Evidence Act 1995 get rid of most rules against hearsay
evidence in civil proceedings so all the employer needed to do was
include the hearsay evidence in the witness statement by the *employer*
so the other side know what's coming and can be ready to counter it (eg
by getting witness statements from the clients)?
--
R
Roland Perry
16:01:50 on Sat, 19 Sep 2009, neverwas <notah...@all.all> remarked:
>> Isn't that hearsay? A witness telling the court what someone else told
>> them? Why didn't the *employer* need to get a witness statement from
>> the two clients (which would then be where any potential perjury
>> lies).
>
>Didn't the Civil Evidence Act 1995 get rid of most rules against hearsay
>evidence in civil proceedings
I don't know. But if anyone has some more information it would be
useful.
>so all the employer needed to do was
>include the hearsay evidence in the witness statement by the *employer*
>so the other side know what's coming and can be ready to counter it (eg
>by getting witness statements from the clients)?
If the hearsay evidence was in a witness statement, then the OP has been
a little relaxed in not challenging it in court. Irrespective of the
paragraphs above.
--
Roland Perry
Humbug
wrote:
The OP did not mention a witness statement.
ISTM that the employer giving the names of the two clients under oath
was the first that he knew about it, and he approached the named
clients to find out wheter they had contacted the employer after the
first day of the hearing was concluded.
--
Humbug