Hi Allan, Glad that helped. Please keep checking what I have written for any factual inaccuracies. You are the expert on this case, and it is of paramount importance, and well before 11/6/10, to determine and marshall and get fluent on all the FACTS of the matter. May I now explore a couple of more angles to help you. Let's look at it from the Cromwell viewpoint to understand what they have (and have not) done in this matter. Let's also compare that to "what is normal" in such matters. I write with 40 years of credit control experience, so let's imagine they did discover one day that they have overpaid you. So what did they do about that? Did they write to you and very carefully explain where, and how, they have overpaid, and by how much? Did they provide you with supporting evidence? Did they take care to distinguish this alleged overpayment from the other matters that were all apparently taken into account by the Employment Tribunal, and by the Appeal to that - which upheld the result but amended the settlement down a bit, implying that something was 'taken into that settlement' by way of an adjustment? Did they call you to discuss how you might be able to repay them? Did they offer you any settlement terms (in instalments)? Did they follow up with any statements or reminders? Did they explain that they might be forced to consider legal action if you ignored their letters, statements and calls? Or did they just pop something into the County Court system on a wing and prayer, without prior notice or warning? If the latter, then the County Court system will want to know why the earlier steps (all 100% normal, in my experience, were such an overpayment to have happened) were not taken. In the real world, people don't go from zero to Court. They communicate, explain and support their contentions. If Crowell did so, did you refute their allegations in writing? If they didn't do so, then why not? Remember, Judges expect businesses and people who "claim to be owed money" to have taken 'all reasonable measures' to collect that money before it becomes a Court matter. It is called 'credit control' and big companies (like Cromwell) have systems to deal with such things, in a properly managed process BEFORE having to 'go legal'. What happened here? Trying to help, Stuart

Hi Allan, May I start by quoting from SFU's excellent posts above - "One could easily come to the view that this is persecution by the misuse of the legal system." For me, that comment struck a raw nerve! when allied to what you have told me of this matter by phone, and to what I have read here. As a non-lawyer, but as one who has been bound by, and interested in the law, (both personally, professionally and corporately in Scotland and in Englad) for 40+ years, I would suggest that litigants (i.e. those bringing claims to the courts, whether English or Scottish) tend to fall into two main categories: 1/ Those with something to defend? (e.g. their security? customers? reputation? assets? brand? business? livelihood? or employees? - the SCRABBLE principle) 2/ Those with something to attack? (e.g. another party's security? customers? reputation? assets? brand? business? livelihood? or employees?) Normally, those who simply wish to 'make a point' or 'right a wrong' and who keep on making it (by bringing various legal actions etc.) to the distress and inconvenience of others (and these people become known as 'vexatious litigants' by legal professionals, who tend to avoid them!!) are litigants in person and/or private individuals who feel very very deeply wronged by some past event, or circumstances, which they then often pursue to irrational ends, without regard for time or cost, because they have become consumed by the feeling of 'being wronged' and by the desire for retribution and revenge. Now companies tend not to do this, unless their very brand or business is majorly at stake, and it is just not tenable to avoid focused legal action to protect the same from such very serious threat. Now I don't see any of that present in this case! So what is driving Cromell? (a successful global business, after all) The facts seems to be: You served them as an employee (in Scotland) for circa 5 years to July 2005. That employment ended badly at that time, for a number of reasons that are now history. You claimed wrongful dismissal, which they disputed. It went to tribunal (in Scotland) and you won that claim (albeit having spent much more than the award, in legal costs, to do so). Cromwell appealled and it went on to that appeal stage. Their appeal was not upheld, but the award in your favour was marginally reduced from circa £8k to circa £7k (to a corporate entity not a material difference, but to you an unwelcome drop!) presumably because all the then known accounting balances and entries in both directions (who owed whom what for what etc) were fully accounted for (this point seems crucial, so it is worth you checking). They (Cromwell) then did not even have the 'good grace' to pay the reduced balance of circa £2k still owed to you (having only paid circa £5k of the reduced £7k settlement) despite having been directed to do so. In my experience, as an FCA and company director, this fact alone is literally unbelievable and surely constitutes near legal contempt by them and also very bad corporate practice? You then contested their non-payment of that balance (bearing in mind that they are an English company at HQ level) through the County Court (in Leicester, England) and won settlement of that balance of £2k which (with their arms legally twisted by the judge on that occasion!) they finally paid to you. Now, some 5 years on, they are trying by various means to drum up various balances (from a PC transfer?, via overpaid wages?, now, to amounts 'paid in error' - what next?) that they claim you still owe them??? (five years on!) when this has all been crawled through not just by an Employment Tribunal, but by an Appeal following such..... You vigorously dispute these claims, (and the costs and interest they are starting to add in to make the numbers larger and more frightening), which they currently seek to press (being the latest of their attempts) at Barnsley County Court on 11/6/10. This all brings me right back to SFU's expressed concerns. Now are these people really stupid? Or do they not recognise due legal authority (whether English or Scottish)? Or is this some form of persecution (of any ex-employee) for some unstated reason? (not something that companies tend to do in my view and experience of literally hundreds of corporate situations). If I have captured the essence of this matter correctly, then it does seem that they have no case. Your bank statements around the time of 2005 should indeed help disprove their allegations that monies were 'paid to you in error' (again, not something that companies tend to do in my experience!). Equally, it is really incumbent on them to prove that they gave you money to which you were not entitled and which is completely outside of the matters ruled on by both the Employment Tribunal and its Appeal. If they can't, then 'persecution' for a reason, or reasons, unknown starts to loom again as a possibility. Are these people (Cromwell Group) the world's worst: Losers? Employers? or Administrators? Which is it... As SFU states, there may even come a point when you ask them to consider compensating you for the time, costs and distress of being put through all of this vexatious and flawed litigation, over the years since they first revealed themselves as corporately unwilling to accept due legal authority. Why seek to apply to you that which they have been patently unwilling to accept for themselves? Are they Bad administrators? Bad employers? or Bad losers? Why not send a copy of this post to their MD in Leicester and ask him which it is? Allan, I authorise you to give him (their MD in Leicester) my name and mobile number and to refer him to my firm's website. This has gone far enough. If they can prove to me that you owe them the money they claim, I will advise you to pay it. If they can't, I will advise them to make an ex gratia payment of £Xk to you, in full and final settlement, to recognise the pain that this vexatious, motivated and persecutory quest (on their part) has caused and is causing. Stuart