This is for a friend.

He signed a contract of employment with company A

All his payslip and letters were in Company B's name

He lost his job

He took his Company B to the Tribunal and lost

Among the arguments put forward by the Respondent was that he was employed by Company A and not B.

He lost due to some other reasons.

He is now appealing

He has now discovered that Company A has always being a Dormant company.

Companies House records it as Dormant and Non Trading.

And this is both before and after his employment.

He wants to state that the Respondent lied in that matter and hence lied in other matters.

I didn't discuss with him regarding the merit of the original claim.

I really don't know what to think

So guys please your views.

Great if you have case laws to support.

Thanks

Those are not grounds for appeal. IF someone lied about one thing that is not evidence that they lied about anything else. And appeals do not rehear the case anyway.

Plus this is not new evidence. It was always available. The fact her didn't know it was because he didn't do his research well enough - if he had, he could have introduced this at the tribunal. There are no second bites of the cherry.

And he lost, you say, on other grounds. So this fact was not pertinent to the case - it had no influence on the reasons he lost.

Those are not grounds for appeal. IF someone lied about one thing that is not evidence that they lied about anything else. And appeals do not rehear the case anyway.

 

Plus this is not new evidence. It was always available. The fact her didn't know it was because he didn't do his research well enough - if he had, he could have introduced this at the tribunal. There are no second bites of the cherry.

 

And he lost, you say, on other grounds. So this fact was not pertinent to the case - it had no influence on the reasons he lost.

What about propensity?

If a person has misled the Tribunal in a fundamental way, then that should be relevant.

I really don't know.

He is thinking of seeking legal advice on Tuesday.

Also, there is no statute of limitation on fraud.

He could redo his appeal all over again.

Sometimes, Interest of Justice would ensure that the case is reheard.

This is a tough one!

You wrote

Companies House records it as Dormant and Non Trading.

You should of done thorough research.

Its public knowledge.

He wants to state that the Respondent lied in that matter and hence lied in other matters.

Did the respondent lie?

If the subject was not brought up ( as you claim its new evidence (and its not))

How can a person lie when they are not asked.

Misleading and lying are two different things. But even if they lied, it is still impossible to identify ANOTHER lie based on a lie about something else.

BUT according to you, he lost on other grounds. So the lie had no bearing on the decision. Assuming it's a lie. Because in the first place, it is entirely possible that the employer did believe it; and there is no objective evidence that the employer is not company A. Being dormant, in and of itself, is not actually objective evidence of that. I wouldn't make such an assumption unless I was privy to the details the tribunal had and their reasoning for a decision. And what "should" be relevant, in your opinion, doesn't make it so.

But there do not appear to be any legitimate grounds here for an appeal. There is no point of law involved in the employer being a better liar than your friend. And if you want to be pedantic about it, everybody "lies" in a tribunal - it's an adversarial court in which each party tells their version of the truth, whether or not they know it to be the case. Subjective "fact" is rarely cut and dried.

If there is claimed to be new evidence, that is the subject of a review, not an appeal, which may only be on the grounds of a point of law or perversity. But this is not new evidence. It is evidence that always existed which he didn't bother to check - checking out your employers records being a very basic point to do! But you will not succeed on a review that says that he lied about one thing therefore lied about everything else. If, as I say, it was a lie.

I'm not sure what lie the employer is supposed to have told.

His contract of employment was with company A but as company A was non-trading he was paid by Company B (presumably a related comapny?). If so your point is what? There's nothing obviously illegal or fraudulent about that, not on what you've said so I'm not sure how the Respondent misled the Tribunal.

Naming company B as the Respondent instaed of Company A wouldn't usually be a major issue. It's usually possible to amend the name of the Respondent in circumstances like that. Anyway it doesn't appear to be why he lost his case at Tribunal.

If a person has misled the Tribunal in a fundamental way, then that should be relevant.

Hi - Whether or not a witness gave credible evidence is an issue of fact for the trial judge to decide, not something that will be revisited on appeal.

The appeal only looks at points of law. The appeal procedure does not involve hearing from witnesses again.

If the alleged "lying" was not raised in the original hearing, unfortunately I think he will struggle to raise it now. You can't use an appeal as an opportunity to raise new arguments that were not made in the original hearing. Your friend would have been required to disclose the documents he intended to rely on before the hearing. Unless something major has changed with Companies House since the hearing you can't introduce new evidence now.

A good idea to seek legal advice on whether an appeal would have a chance of success.

third party agreements are not uncommon. Yiur friend may well have had a reason to claim form company A or B or even both, the "who should I sue" would be irrelevant. If A had assigned everything to B then suing A is OK, suing B is OK and then company A saying they werent liable would get short shrift

I think that this is a red herring, you have already said that he lost for other reasons. If you look up case law on peopel behaving in a manner that breaks the law in one area it doesnt change a contractual relationship to others. VCS v HMRC and VCS v Somerfield show this. Robbing a third party blind doesnt negate a contract between the first and second parties.

Hi everyone,

The Appeal Tribunal has still not given a date for the Appeal Hearing

The Tribunal has now agreed a Reconsideration Hearing

The reason the Tribunal gave is that it is in the interest of justice

Clearly, the credibility issue is on the mind of the Tribunal

The Recon Hearing is for the end of this month

My question is this; if he is successful at the Recon Hearing and he gets a retrial, can he ask for Cost?