Mistake in my original claim form.

Just going through my original claim form and spotted a mistake that I made at the time if writing it. It involves a comment that was made to me before redundancies were made. I have said in my original claim form (ET1) that the comment was made after xmas, when in fact it was made before, and my witness statement refers to the comment being made before xmas, is this going to cause me a problem? It is a genuine mistake and not meant to mislead.

My issue is this, we are in tribunal next week!!!

Any advice welcomed!

OK, I have submitted the mistake I made to the respondents solicitor and they seem fine with it.

I am in tribunal on Wednesday this week and to be honest, I am very nervous about the whole cross examining bit. Not about the things I will be asked, I will just stick to the truth, but the questions I have to ask the respondents.

I have submitted evidence for instance that proves the two witness for the respondent have both told lies in their witness statements. Can I call them liars or do I have to dress it up?

Also, is proving that the two very people who were responsible for my not being selected for a role when redundancies happened to be liars enough? There are inconsistencies throughout the case on their part and I know if a layman read through I would win. They have been proved liars and the documentation is there for all to see. Do they become unreliable witness'? I realise however that there are legal precedents that need to be proved.

I understand that I have given you little information and understand any answers will be sketchy to say the least. But is the truth enough?

Thank you in advance.

Celsis

Okay, be a bit careful.

You are indeed entitled to bring your case and to cross-examine witnesses rigorously. However, you do not endear yourself to people by calling them liars. Say something like "what you have said at X is untrue. isn't it?".

My general view (and those who do ETs regularly will be able to offer a better view) is don't count on being able to pick holes in their version of events, on its own, to win a case. You need to be able, as well, to demonstrate that the wrong you are complaining of actually happened! It might well be the case that if there are huge inconsistencies in what the other side is saying, that the ET will be more likely to accept your version of events, but I guess what I am saying is try not to rely on that alone, if possible.