Apparently RLP have issued a large claim against an ex employee of a retail store for 'losses arising as a result of breach of contractual and fiduciary duties'.

Apparently RLP have issued a large claim against an ex employee of a retail store for 'losses arising as a result of breach of contractual and fiduciary duties'.

Hi

Can you qualify that statement. You say RLP have issued a large claim. Usually the store would instigate legal action via their solicitors who 'may' use the solicitors of RLP but the store would still be the claimant.

Suing an ex employee is vastly different to general shoplifting as a full investigation would have been undertaken before any action taken and the police may have been involved as well.

I will believe what you are saying when I see the full story.

The claim has been issued by RLP, not their previous employer. LB are dealing with it.

Apparently RLP have issued a large claim against an ex employee of a retail store for 'losses arising as a result of breach of contractual and fiduciary duties'.

Did the employee have a contract with RLP? Seems unlikely so how can they sue?

Same as how Jacky tried it back when she was issuing Claims all over the place? Maybe she thinks she's found a loophole

Same as how Jacky tried it back when she was issuing Claims all over the place?

Did they ever? There were no claims issued by them or County Collections between at least 2012 to late last year according to an HMCTS FoI.

She issued them like confetti before that judgement

As I recall, the judgments that RLP crowed about on their website were almost all related to employee theft cases - but the claims were issued by the retailers.

Did the employee have a contract with RLP? Seems unlikely so how can they sue?

RLP will be issuing on behalf of their client, the employer, not for themselves.

RLP will be issuing on behalf of their client, the employer, not for themselves.

So it will be the employer issuing then won't it?

Semantics.

The employer will be the Claimant but the physical act of preparing the Court papers and issuing them will be RLP.

Semantics.

 

The employer will be the Claimant but the physical act of preparing the Court papers and issuing them will be RLP.

Maybe, but it seems a bit misleading to suggest that RLP are making the claim. Seems to me they're saying it's them to make other RLP victims think that they do have some teeth so they need to pay up, when in reality the Oxford case confirmed that their so-called fines are nothing of the sort.

The claimant is Retail Loss Prevention Ltd and their solicitors are listed as Shakespeare Martineau. I've no idea of their locus standi but there it is.

The claimant is Retail Loss Prevention Ltd and their solicitors are listed as Shakespeare Martineau. I've no idea of their locus standi but there it is.

Really??!

That's interesting.

jacky could be in very hot water over this.

The claimant is Retail Loss Prevention Ltd and their solicitors are listed as Shakespeare Martineau. I've no idea of their locus standi but there it is.

I wonder if RLP are doing what MIL Collections have started doing with private parking; assignments of debts that are based on speculative invoices (and so don't really exist), then bringing court claims. MIL never turn up to court and lose any defended claim, but I imagine the number of people intimidated into paying makes it worth while. It sounds like the sort of scheme that would appeal to La Lambert.

I wonder if RLP are doing what MIL Collections have started doing with private parking; assignments of debts that are based on speculative invoices (and so don't really exist), then bringing court claims. MIL never turn up to court and lose any defended claim, but I imagine the number of people intimidated into paying makes it worth while. It sounds like the sort of scheme that would appeal to La Lambert.

We are straying into theoretical territory now. IF it is true that RLP are making claims in their own name, they must 'own' the charge so an assumption is that they would have paid the store a fee for doing so. Until we see the case in question, all we can do is speculate.

It may be that they are doing an 'MIL' however I can't see this being successful as when RLP are acting for the store, they include non recoverable costs (security etc.). To act on their own, they wouldn't have the same standing.

Apparently RLP have made an application to substitute the claimant for the retailer.

Apparently RLP have made an application to substitute the claimant for the retailer.

Now thats a suprise

Apparently RLP have made an application to substitute the claimant for the retailer.

Can you please provide more info on this. You can PM if the information is confidential.

and?

As I understand it the retailer has made an application to change the claimant from RLP to themselves due to an 'error'. The deadline for filing the new particulars is about now.

If RLP is not the legitimate claimant, then the only outcome is going to be a dismissal or strike-out of the claim.

If RLP is not the legitimate claimant, then the only outcome is going to be a dismissal or strike-out of the claim.

Why?

CPR 19a:

''1.1 Parties may be removed, added or substituted in existing proceedings either on the court’s own initiative or on the application of either an existing party or a person who wishes to become a party.''

Note to self: Need to go to Specsavers. Lol!

Yes, totally agree with you, cjcregg. If RLP have put themselves as the Claimant, when they are not, then the retailer or the court are quite in order to change this. Perhaps, a closer eye needs to be kept on RLP.