[Insert in para 6.1 of claim form ET3:] 1 [It is denied that the[ First] Respondent subjected the Claimant to a detriment within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, s 47B(1) AND/OR that the[ Second] Respondent subjected the Claimant to a detriment within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, s 47B(1A)] as alleged or at all, or that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief. 2 It is denied that the Claimant made his disclosure to the [Office of Fair Trading]

[Insert in para 6.1 of claim form ET3:] 1 It is denied that the Respondent subjected the Claimant to a detriment within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996, s 47B as alleged or at all, or that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief. 2 It is denied that the disclosure to the [newspaper] was a qualifying disclosure under the

[Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 Paragraph 1 of the Grounds of Claim is admitted. 2 It is admitted that the Respondent advertised a new role of team leader on [insert date]. The new role did require significantly longer hours of work than those worked by the Claimant. It is admitted that the claimant spoke to his manager about the role on or about [insert date] but it is denied that the manager expressed surprise at the Claimant’s interest in the role. It was the Claimant who asked what hours of work would be required in the team-leader position. Mr A explained what

[Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 Paragraph 1 of the Grounds of Claim is admitted. 2 It is admitted that there were terms of the Claimant's contract as set out at paragraph 2 of the Grounds of Claim. 3 Paragraph 3 of the Grounds of Claim is admitted. 4 It is admitted that the Claimant commenced her maternity leave on

[Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 The Respondent denies that it is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all and contends that: 1.1 The Claimant is not

[Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 It is admitted that the Respondent, when considering applications for the post of English teacher at their school, applied a criterion that all applicants for the post should be able to speak and write English to an acceptable

[Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 Paragraph 1 of the Grounds of Claim is admitted. 2 It is admitted that permanent employees of the Respondent receive late duty allowances and fixed term employees do not and it is admitted that the Claimant’s manager explained this situation to her. The non-provision of late duty allowances to fixed-term employees is objectively justified because the terms of fixed-term employees’ contracts of employment are at least as favourable as those of permanent employees. In particular, the contracts of fixed-term administrative assistants provide for a higher basic hourly rate of pay than do the contracts of permanent administrative assistants. 3 It is admitted that on or about [insert date], members of the Claimant’s team were provided with training on the use of spreadsheets and that the Claimant

[Insert in para 6.1 of claim form ET3:] 1 It is denied that the Respondent subjected the Claimant to a detriment under NMWA 1998 s 23 as alleged or at all. 2 The Respondent contends that: 2.1 The Claimant has at all material times been paid in excess of the national minimum wage. On [insert date] he sought a pay increase and stated that if he did not get it,

[Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 It is denied that the Respondent is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all: 1.1 [The Claimant is not entitled to remuneration

[Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed for the following reasons. 2 The Respondent: 2.1 permitted

[Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed for the following reasons. 2 The amount of time which the Claimant requested to take off to [look

[Insert in para 6.1 of response form ET3:] 1 It is denied that the Respondent [refused to permit the Claimant to exercise his rights OR failed to pay the Claimant any amount to which he was entitled] under the Working Time Regulations 1998 as alleged or at all. 2 The Claimant was not entitled to a weekly rest period for the following reasons: 2.1 [The Respondent contends that, on account of the specific characteristics of the activities in which he was engaged [the duration of his working time was neither