Self Representation at the Labour Court
Parties may represent themselves at hearings before the Labour Court. There is no requirement to have representation by another person.
Where a party represents themselves, they may be accompanied by a person to assist/support/advise in the presentation of their case. Such persons, where they are not designated as a representative, will not be permitted to address the Court or to act as a spokesperson for the party.
Typically, those acting in a support capacity to a self-represented person will be permitted to assist with the smooth presentation of the case by, for example, readying and organising documents and providing discreet guidance and advice during the hearing.
The Court, however, will not permit joint or dual representation of a case between a self-represented person and a support person. If a party is representing themselves, they will be required to be the sole spokesperson.
The Court’s duty to any party is that they have a fair opportunity to present their case to the best of their ability. The Court won’t advise but will explain. The Court will try to minimise any disadvantage arising for an unrepresented party, but only in so far as fairness will allow. The Court must balance the duty of fairness to the unrepresented party with the rights of the opposing party. An unrepresented party is certainly not entitled to accrue an advantage over a represented party by virtue of their representation status.
The Court will expect any party, irrespective of their status, to equip themselves with an appropriate understanding of the process they are engaging in. To familiarise themselves with the Court’s publishedRules, which among many other matters, explains basic courtroom protocol and etiquette. For an unrepresented party, familiarity with the Court’s rules takes on a greater level of importance.
The Court will normally assist an unrepresented party, where necessary, by clarifying the Court’s rules and procedures, elaborating on how the Court works, explaining procedural choices. The Court will do this to the limit of what is fair, appropriate and necessary. Some unrepresented parties will be very capable, and the Court is entitled to take that into account. The Court’s approach, of course, will always be subject to inviting and hearing any objections/concerns to the approach raised by the opposing party.
Proceedings involving unrepresented parties may differ, as appropriate, to what might normally apply where professional representatives are present.
The question of giving evidence in an employment rights matter, for example, may arise. The Court will normally explain to an unrepresented party the choices available to them, should a disputed matter require to be resolved by the Court.
An unrepresented party may simply tell or submit to the Court, in an unsworn untested manner, their version of events. Or they may do so more formally through sworn direct evidence, which would be subject to cross-examination by the opposing party. It will be explained to the unrepresented party that should the Court be required to assess an unsworn submitted version of events against sworn evidence, then a higher value will be assigned to the latter.
Where an unrepresented party in an employment rights matter chooses to give sworn evidence, in practical terms this will be managed differently by the Court. In the absence of a representative, there is unlikely to be the usual question and answering format normally involved in direct evidence. It is more likely that the Court will permit the evidence to be given in a narrative/story-telling form by the unrepresented party, together with questions from the Court, with of course cross-examination permitted in the usual way by the opposing party thereafter.
