Going to lose because I can't afford a solicitor aren't I?!?

[Ispywithmycynicaleye]

David vs Goliath case, been told by the judge there is a case, which will subsequently change many workers lives for the better. But unless I find a solicitor I will have to pull out and they will win.

Why is the ststem set up like this? What is the point having channels workers can go down for all exits to be blocked unless you have the money to pay £thousands, which I don't. Legal aid isn't an option and all charities maxed out.

It's such a disappointment but a typical inevitable conclusion.

Sorry, its more of a rant than looking for advice 😡

Are you a member of a union? They usually have their own solicitors.

Can you represent yourself? You''ve got nothing to lose really.

What’s the claim about. Pm me if you like

Employment tribunals can often be done on a no win no fee basis.

Have you checked your home insurance in case you have legal cover?

Why will you have to pull out if you don't have a solicitor? You can represent yourself. Indeed, if this is an employment tribunal case (guessing from your reference to workers), the assumption is that you will represent yourself. That is why costs are generally not awarded in tribunal cases.

As others have said, if you have legal cover with your home insurance, your insurer should be able to help. And there are solicitors offering no win, no fee arrangements for employment cases.

Union decided to stay neutral!! Home insurance was dead end. Universities, charities all busy. Quite a complicated case so very difficult to self represent.
No win no fee solicitor's, a few sounded very keen, don't want to go into specifics, but they backed away after seeing the case.

It's so frustrating, the outcome of this would have the knock on effect of benefitting other employees in other companies, not just the one I work for. Its understandable why individuals avoid stading up for their rights!

If it’s going to an employment tribunal then the judge didn’t say you have a case - your employer tried to argue your case had no reasonable prospect of success and the judge decided that was not the case, which is a bit different.

it is however pretty easy to represent yourself at ET and low risk - costs are rarely awarded if you lose. Equally, if it’s an ET they set no precedent, so it won’t have benefits for lots of other workers.

If it’s going to an employment tribunal then the judge didn’t say you have a case - your employer tried to argue your case had no reasonable prospect of success and the judge decided that was not the case, which is a bit different

Actually this part happened, just as you explain, a while ago and not what I was referring to.

Equally, if it’s an ET they set no precedent, so it won’t have benefits for lots of other workers

It would when they realise what they're entitled to.

The judge wouldn’t have said you have a case though. They might have said you have the ability to proceed with your case on the basis that it could succeed but they won’t have said that you will win your case. Judges do sometimes give a fairly strong steer on some points at a preliminary hearing but that’s as far as it goes and it will have been qualified heavily since they won’t have heard the evidence and a different judge will ultimately be hearing the case anyway.

It’s not the case that even if you succeed that it will make any difference to other workers. As pp said the ET decision itself is not a precedent. As for “others realising what they are entitled to”, If they are genuinely workers rights then employees will have other means of becoming informed of their rights if they are not already.

just to remind you that employment tribunal decisions are reported on the internet. Although anonymity can be sought it is rarely granted. So you should be prepared for the details to be reported- note that you may not win and may not feel the decision is fair in the end.

The fact that the other side tried to have your claim struck out can indicate that your claim is weak (but sometimes is just aggressive tactics). Also the fact that no win no fee solicitors are not interested likely means your claim will not be easy to win. Generally though employment lawyers don’t tend to take more complex claims on that basis.

as others have said though- no harm in giving representing yourself a go. But I do agree that it can be tough and stressful. You have to consider if it’s worth it.

Unions don't stay neutral. They assess the legal merit of a case and the likelihood of success. Its not a perfect system, but it isn't possible to take every case to tribunal, so assessment has to be made. People do win when they represent themselves, tribunals are set up to assist ordinary people.

If the union won't provide solicitor its because they assessed it (usually they get a barrister to assess) to have not much chance of success.

If the union won't provide solicitor its because they assessed it (usually they get a barrister to assess) to have not much chance of success

I have been informed by the union why they won't get involved and it wasn't because of this.

You can also research McKenzie friends. If this is a Tribunal they can represent you and run the case. Many will be very experienced in specific fields. Some do it free and others charge about £75 per hour which is considerably less than a solicitor. @Ispywithmycynicaleye

If you decide to represent yourself, at least you'll have plenty of time to prepare. The downside is that you have to stay focused for a long time and it can dominate your life for a long time. There's always a huge backlog of cases.

I meant to add that your employer will likely be represented by a lawyer, with in-house or an external firm they use, who will be specialists - and who won't be emotionally invested in the case.
Good luck.

Generally though employment lawyers don’t tend to take more complex claims

Yes, I believe this has deterred no win no fee solicitors.

I wish I had the money to fight this, or even better, a sister who was an employment solicitor

@Thelittleweasel

You can also research McKenzie friends thankyou, I've not heard of them! I'll contact them and see if they could help in any way. Even pointers in the right direction would be useful!

@ICouldHaveCheckedFirst yes they do have solicitors, big scary ones

If that were true, then the union wouldn't be being neutral - they would be footing the bill. It is one of the "absolutes" in the criteria that unions sues for deciding which cases to back. If there is a prospect of creating precedent or massive impact, they will fund the case even if the case falls below the normal threshold for taking on the case. Therefore the union do not think it is at all likely to set the precedent you think. Cases are assessed by the unions retained lawyers, and where there is a prospect of a precedent they will always be passed to one of their external companies for advice. Unsurprisingly, these companies retained by unions are some of the most brilliant employment law people going.

I wouldn't let that put you off fighting it yourself if you feel you need to, but I am afraid that I come across people all the time who have fantastic cases for tribunal. But only because they fail to understand the context of employment law - which is what you did when you assumed that the judge said there is a case. Anyone who knows tribunals knows for an absolute fact that no judge would ever say this. They will say, as I has been pointed out already, that "there is a case to answer" which is a very different thing.

Don't build up your hopes. If you cannot find anyone to represent you there will be a reason, and it's unlikely to be because you have a good case.

You can also research McKenzie friends thankyou, I've not heard of them! I'll contact them and see if they could help in any way. Even pointers in the right direction would be useful!

You can't contact them. They don't exist! A Mckenzie friend is someone who comes along with you to assist you in presenting your case by assisting with such matters as taking notes, helping to organise the documents, and quietly making suggestions. They can't speak in courts and they are your friend quite literally - someone you know, a mate, a pal...

IANAL - but, I’ve fought quite a few battles.

case histories (or whatever the correct name for them is) are your friend. Google the fuck out of the situation, crawl legal docs and databases and find a precedent. There is almost ALWAYS one - and then ask the judge to consider and observe that result.

If your union solicitor won't take it on, and the no win no fee lawyers backed away then that tells me that most of the legal professionals you contacted don't think that you will win.

That's why I'd self represent. Like I said, there's nothing to lose then.

What reason did the union give you then?

@Quveas

They do, and they advertise, and charge.

Quveas is correcting OP's impression that McKenzie Friends is an organisation. She describes the role of a McKenzie Friend correctly.