3 Comments

  • Isn’t fibromyalgia that made-up disease? It is impossible to prove it exists beyond the patient’s word so not sure how you could prove it in court.

  • Here’s the YouTube clip. Reading between the lines, it seems the claimant is a pro se suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect, a sense amplified by watching the clip of her confidently telling off the judges that they don’t know what they’re missing and then blaming the backing track and the microphone (but not the fibromyalgia).

    “The pre-trial review at Central London Tribunal Court will determine whether an employment tribunal can hear her case.”

    Fascinating: can one of our UK readers edify us on this procedural device?

  • The reference to the “Central London Tribunal Court” is probably a reference either to the Central London County Court, or to an Employment Tribunal sitting at the London Central hearing centre; from the context it appears to be the second.

    If that is so, then I am rather confused as to why this claim has been brought before an Employment Tribunal, rather than the High Court or a county court. The main reason for my confusion is that I can’t see how the contractual relationship between a contestant and the production company can properly be described as one of employment.

    I gather from the relevant procedural rules that the purpose of the pre-hearing review (as those rules refer to it) is, amongst other things, to determine whether a full hearing (trial) is necessary or whether the claim can be disposed of summarily because, for example, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction or it does but the claim has no reasonable prospect of success.