Having first submitted my EX107 transcript application form to HMCTS’ transcription partner Epiq Europe Ltd. on 4 September 2024, and paying the required deposit of £1,500 on 10 January 2025, I finally received the transcript of my 3-day ET hearing in my case against my former employer, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, on 17 March 2025, more than 2 months after paying my deposit (the Epiq ‘Service Level Band’ I selected was ‘Within 12 working days’).
The initial inordinate delay was partly due to the time it took Leeds ET and Epiq—between the submission of my EX107 form and my paying the deposit—to respond to my request for information and clarification about the process. After I had paid the required deposit, further undue delay was introduced by Leeds ET’s insistence that the transcript should be returned to the Court for approval prior to release – despite the HMCTS Guidance for requesting a transcript form appearing to suggest that this would only be required in cases where a transcript for a judgment is being requested: Any requests for a transcript for a judgment will need to be approved by the judge, therefore additional time will be required before the transcript can be released (why would cases where a judgment is requested be singled out if this was not the exception?); and paragraph 23 of the Presidential Practice Direction – Recording of Employment Tribunal hearings and the transcription of recordings guidance stating: Transcripts will not be subject to any check, verification or approval by an Employment Judge (including a leadership judge) or any non-legal member prior to their release.
However the EX107 form itself, at section E4 (‘For completion by Court/Tribunal staff only’), poses the question: ‘Should the transcript be returned to the Court for approval by a judge prior to release’, so it is understandable—to some degree—how the whole process became so prolonged and confusing, if HMCTS is not even competent enough to apply an acceptable degree of consistency to its own guidance.
To confuse the matter further, in an email dated 7 March 2025, Epiq advised me that guidance issued to them by HMCTS states: ‘It is crucial for Ministry of Justice contracted Transcription Suppliers to adhere to the guidelines regarding the release of transcripts. Specifically, transcripts must not be released before obtaining Judicial approval when instructed by the Authority (Ministry of Justice).
‘In Civil and Family cases, judicial approval of draft judgment transcripts is always mandatory before the transcript can be released. Additionally, judicial approval may be required in other instances if the Judge indicates so.’ [my italics]
THE TRANSCRIPTS
The links to transcripts should open a new window containing the relevant pdf document in an integrated pdf flip-book plugin. Use the ‘Back’ option or the menu above to return to this page.
These transcripts were provided by HMCTS’ transcription partner Epiq Europe Ltd.
Paragraph 19 of the Presidential Practice Direction Recording of Employment Tribunal hearings and the transcription of recordings states: Where a transcript has been produced, it is not the record of proceedings; rather, as stated at paragraph 5 of the same document: Where an audio recording has been made, it will constitute the record of proceedings.
It should be noted that these transcripts are not perfect verbatim records of each day’s proceedings. Inevitably, occasional errors appear that make sentences or phrases seem illogical or nonsensical.
They remain as I received them, I have made no effort to correct mistakes.
ET hearing day one – 28 May 2024 (79 pages)
ET hearing day two – 29 May 2024 (84 pages)
ET hearing day three – 30 May 2024 (28 pages)