Admissible evidence in Tribunal

[mustincreasebust]

I am currently in the middle of a Tribunal case representing myself.

Basically, I was due to return to work last year but during a meeting I was demoted and employer did a whole bunch other of stuff. In this meeting was me, HR and my former manager. In their response to my ET claim my employers have basically lied to their teeth and denied everything that happened in said meeting.

I had used my mobile to record this meeting and the recording is surprisingly clear. I contacted a transcriber who has heard it and is happy to transcribe the contents. Now I have to admit that I did not warn the people attending the meeting that I was recording the meeting . Nor have I told my former employers that I have this recording.

Can someone tell me if this recording (well the transcription) would be admissible by the tribunal? Now the recording is not the only piece of evidence I have to rely on, I have other evidence but obviously the recording makes it an open and shut case. It would help me as right now as far as what was said in the meeting it's my word against two people's, so I am keen to get it admitted.

My plan was just to slip the transcription in the list of docs I submit for hearing? Can someone please advise me to the sanity of my plan?

[mustincreasebust]

blearghhhhh sorry about all the typos toddler is pawing at the laptop

[MarthaFarquhar]

I would very much doubt it.
The police need a warrant from a judge to put someone under this level of surveillance and it is not easy to get.

Can you consult a union/employment lawyer re this, even if you still wish to represent yourself?

[mustincreasebust]

Thanks MF, we have no union. I am still weighing up the getting a lawyer due to costs. We have one family car and the only way to fund a lawyer is to sell it which I really don't want to do.

To be honest, deep down I kinda figured that the recording wouldn't fly hence keeping schtum about it to my former employers.

[flowerybeanbag]

I wouldn't have thought so for a minute. If you slip a transcription of the meeting in your bundle for the hearing I can't imagine you getting away with it.

On the plus side, in terms of your two-people-against-one problem, the Tribunal would obviously be aware that the other two both work for your employer, so it wouldn't be the same as if an independent witness to a conversation backed up your employer rather than you.

[Heated]

It's a bugger, my father used to tap phones amongst doing other things in a former life and you can't use it in court.

It's a shame you can't say you have recorded the meeting, here's the transcript and it contradicts everything boss said but unfortunately it's inadmissible

[mustincreasebust]

I had envisioned a dramatic hearing where lying HR lady breaks down on the stand while I wave my iron clad evidence in front of her. Sigh.... why doesn't anything ever happen like it does on TV?

Heated loving the idea of your dad's old job maybe need to look into that as a new career. I was loving the sense of danger with my dinky mobile recording

Thanks all for replying, back to doing actual graft to win.

[Strawberrycornetto]

I would suggest you disclose it to the other side early on so when you exchange all documents. While there is a chance it will not be admissible it is not entirely clearcut. They will be worried about it so it might lead to them making you an offer to settle your claim. If you spring it on them late in the day it will defintely not be admitted and you could end up at risk on costs. Keep the original as well as he transcript.

Also suggest you get some proper advice if your claim is worth anything financially.

[IndigoSky]

Just becasue it's not admissible in court doesn't mean you have to destroy it or that you can't use it. It might force a settlement. Even if they cry foul and you can't use it in the tribunal you could ask very specific questions using phrases they themselves used at the meeting. If they lie at the tribunal or submit false evidence they are perverting the course of justice.

Your best bet might be to say that the transcrpt is your note of the meeting. You are of course allowed to take notes at a meeting and those are admissible in Court.

You've got nothing to lose. They are playing dirty so I think you should use whatever weapons you have at your diposal.

[ilovemydogandmrobama]

It's an interesting point though. Presumably you're representing yourself because you can't afford legal representation? So, not sure that you necessarily need to know all the rules of evidence as a lay person, which may work to your advantage as long as you are honest about what you are doing.

if it was me, I'd transcribe the recording, and then exchange it with the other side. But ask the tribunal chair about it at the earliest opportunity and say that it was specifically in response to their assertion (enter assertion).

Say you aren't sure whether it's admissible or not, but that you feel it's relevant.

[mustincreasebust]

Ok interesting points, let me try to give you a brief version of the story.

My troubles started when I submitted a flexible working request despite my manager asking me not too (he wanted an informal arrangement) but I didn't trust him and wanted everything formal. They meeting was arranged after I complained to HR that my boss told me that I was basically no use to him if I didn't work the 60hr weeks I used to work pre DD. This meeting was 3 months after submitting a flexi working request which despite me chasing they ignored.

I was told the meeting would be to deal with my complaint but it turned into a quasi flexi working meeting where HR filled out a new flexi working form on my behalf which was completely different from my original and then they demoted me.

I plan on being completely honest with the tribunal, I understand my main strengths are the facts so I wouldn't jeopardise this. I am also mulling on arguing about the admissibility due to the fact that you are allowed someone to accompany you at these meetings even if this was never offered. What do you guys think?

[mustincreasebust]

Another question which is going on a tangent but we had a CMD hearing recently which was fine but their side was represented by a Barrister. Is that normal?
It threw me a bit as I feel like their strategy is to win on technicalities rather than the facts iyswim because apart from recordings etc i do have quite a bit of evidence.

I didn't think Barristers got involved until hearing.

[Strawberrycornetto]

It is not unusual to have a barrister for a cmd. It can be cheaper bizarely. If you are worried about technicalities speak to citizens advice. For example, you may be able get a barrister to represent you for free at the hearing. A little bit of advice now may help you later.

[mustincreasebust]

Thank you Strawberrycornetto, I did see citizen's advice early on but they didn't mention free barrister so will check with them again.

[LazyJourno]

Check your home/car insurance you may have legal cover on it.

[RibenaBerry]

Actually, I have to disagree with some of the advice on here. Tribunals do not use the same rules of evidence as full courts. It may be admissable.

You should include the tape and the transcript in your list of documents. You MUST do this, or you are in contempt. Your employer will likely seek to have the evidence excluded and the judge will rule. It may result in a pre-hearing on this issue. They also have the right to the full tape, note just the transcript.

[flowerybeanbag]

Sandra I've reported your post I'm afraid - you need to pay a fee for advertising