What Adjudicators Actually Look At: Evidence Presentation in WRC Hearings

The presentation gap

In our analysis of 12,847 WRC decisions, we found that cases with structurally similar facts produced different outcomes depending on how the evidence was presented. This wasn't about having better evidence — it was about making the evidence accessible to the adjudicator.

Adjudicators read hundreds of submissions a year. They have limited time per case. The submissions that succeed are the ones that make the adjudicator's job easier.

1. Label everything

The most basic error — and the most common. In cases where the adjudicator noted “the claimant submitted a bundle of documents without an index” or similar language, the claimant lost 74% of the time.

Every document should have: a clear title, a date, and a description of what it proves. An adjudicator should be able to understand the relevance of a document without reading it.

CaseDesk does this automatically. Every uploaded document is categorised, dated, and summarised. The case file index is generated from your uploads.

2. Build a chronology

Employment disputes unfold over time. An adjudicator needs to understand the sequence of events to assess whether the employer's actions were reasonable. Presenting evidence without a chronology forces the adjudicator to reconstruct the timeline themselves — and they will fill gaps with assumptions that may not favour your client.

In decisions where the adjudicator explicitly referenced a submitted chronology, the submitting party's arguments were adopted in the decision 68% of the time. When no chronology was provided, the rate dropped to 41%.

CaseDesk generates chronologies automatically from uploaded documents, colour-coded by party, with gap detection built in.

3. Cite legislation correctly

Referencing “the unfair dismissals act” without specifying the section is like citing a book without a page number. Adjudicators are not obligated to find the relevant provision for you.

In decisions where the claimant cited specific sections (e.g., “Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977”), the adjudicator engaged with the statutory argument in 91% of cases. Where the legislation was referenced vaguely or not at all, statutory arguments were addressed in only 54% of decisions.

CaseDesk's submission drafting assistant automatically inserts legislation with correct citation format.

4. Address the other side's strongest argument

This is where experienced solicitors separate from everyone else. The most effective submissions don't just present their own case — they anticipate and address the strongest counter-argument.

In decisions where one party proactively addressed the other side's likely arguments, the adjudicator ruled in that party's favour 63% of the time. Ignoring the other side's position correlated with a 39% success rate.

CaseDesk's hearing preparation modegenerates the three strongest opposing arguments and suggested responses, so you're never caught off guard.

5. Structure beats narrative

Submissions written as continuous narrative — “I started working there in January and then my manager said...” — are harder to parse than structured submissions with clear headings: Background, Facts, Law, Arguments, Remedy.

We can't directly measure the impact of structure from published decisions (the submissions themselves aren't published). But adjudicators we've spoken to consistently confirm: a structured submission with headings, numbered paragraphs, and a clear separation of fact from argument is significantly easier to assess — and easier to rule in favour of.

CaseDesk pre-loads the correct WRC submission structure so every submission follows the format adjudicators expect.

The bottom line

The quality of your evidence matters. But the quality of your evidence presentation matters almost as much. An adjudicator who can follow your argument, verify your facts, and understand your chronology is an adjudicator who can rule in your favour.

CaseDesk doesn't change your evidence. It changes how it's organised, presented, and understood.