Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'henderson'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 1 result

  1. Hi I wonder if you can help, I think this forum is amazing and I would appreciate some advice please. Can a Respondent use the Henderson and Henderson argument of abuse of process (ie: you can't get a second bite of the cherry) if the claim was referred to before but only at a preliminary hearing and not in the ET1 but as a head of loss on the Schedule of Loss and was dismissed during the case management orders? (That claim went to a full hearing and I won the right to receive occupational sick pay instead of SSP.) At that first preliminary hearing the Judge told me to "put a claim in" when he heard that holiday pay was previously underpaid and this was a continuing occurence. However, the Respondent is relying on the word "dismissed" in their argument for getting the claim thrown out, even though the claim had not been advanced as it was during a preliminary hearing. (Something in my daze prevented me from telling that to the different Judge at the new preliminary hearing for holiday pay, as their barrister certainly didn't!) Also, the old schedule of loss only referred to statutory holiday pay, but I found that I was entitled to contractual holiday pay out of time to amend the ET1 (this entitlement was in my contract which I had not seen since 2002 but they disclosed it 2 days before the hearing) so I put in my new calculations in the new claim. So it is a new claim with different particulars and a different starting date and I only knew about the contractual benefits when I saw my whole contract 2 days before the first hearing during a late disclosure from the Respondent - which outlined the benefit that they had withheld since 2002. (I only got the occupational sick pay during the first hearing since it was on the ET1 as "unpaid sick pay" but at the time of filing I had only ever received SSP for some of the time I was off sick). Also, to explain why I had not seen my contract since 2002, I didn't have the need to as I liked my job, but they cut my hours recently - calling me a casual worker, which I disputed since I had regular hours for years. I hope this makes sense! Any advice (or reassurance would be great as I am representing myself). Many thanks in advance! PS: Extra information: At the first preliminary hearing the respondent pleaded” ”The Claimant's ET1 does not disclose any claim for holiday pay, whether by way of a wages claim or under the Working Times Regulations 1998. According such a claim is not before the Tribunal for determination". In response the Judge made the following Case Management order: "The claim for holiday pay appears only in the Schedule of Loss and is also unquantified. It was not included or referred to in her ET1 and is accordingly dismissed".
×
×
  • Create New...