Author: Dennis Chapman
Published: April 29, 2013
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 8 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
A recent case at the Employment Tribunal has ruled that covert recordings made by Claimants to use as evidence will not be admissible.
The judge gave 3 key reasons as to why they did not allow the Claimant to use this evidence, namely;
1. As the recordings were made covertly and without a witness, they could have been tampered with. The Claimant had not had the recordings independently transcribed and as such their content could not be verified.
2. The information disclosed about the recordings was insufficient that an opinion as to whether they were relevant to the facts in issue could not be made.
3. The time and cost involved in listening to such recordings was disproportionate to the facts in issue.
Worth considering for the future, if an employee states they have recordings made covertly they will not be admissible at Tribunal.