interesting emails

[caledfwlch]

From what I have seen, to enforce legal privilage, the Client would have to go to the High Court for argue for and win an Injunction.

 

Untill that happens, I suspect its safe to use them.

[becky2585]

You can use them for knowledge, but you can't use them in ET proceedings, or cross examine the respondent on them, because they're privileged. Take for example a respondent accidentally sending its documents for review to the other side instead of their own solicitor - it couldn't then be used.

 

Lbruk, I think you're getting legal privilege a little confused. If they're disclosed on purpose, privilege is waived. If by accident, it isn't. Most firms email footers will usually state something along those lines too.

 

No injunction necessary - the ET would just refuse to include the emails as evidence.

[zoemk10]

*Update*

 

Thanks for all the advice so far, very much appreciated.

 

I have had a meeting with my solicitor and he has advised that in his opinion because the emails were in the bundle and had been numbered as if they were meant to be there he feels privilege no longer exists.

 

He advises that I have no duty of care to them and I'm not responsible for helping them to put right their error.

 

So An email has gone back stating that in our opinion privilege no longer applies, reasons as above and that the documents should remain in the bundle. We go on to say if they disagree then we will leave it up to the tribunal to decide on the morning of the hearing.

 

I will let you know what they say!!!

[jackieandwayne]

Good luck Zoe, don't give up. I'm not allowed to speak about my case, but I will share something rather naughty I did before it all kicked off, and one of my poor colleagues was in the teeth of a bully! Its very naughty by the way but I don;t regret it.

 

My colleague was being set up for the sack by our line manager. I saw it coming, and actually caught the line manager out in falsifying documents to make a case to have my colleague sacked. I too was suffering at her hands, but not quite full on yet, she could only deal with one of us at a time. I regret now very much that I didn'lt report her for what I cauight her doing. Anyway a couple of weeks further on, the silly mare must have been working at my desk when I had a day off, and she left her notebook (in which she recorded EVERYTHING and it generally never left her side) there. I came in at the crack of dawn the next day and found it. Of course I read it, I was preparing for my own fight which I knew was coming next. It gave me some very useful information. It also proved that this manager had, many weeks prior, made a lovely little plan to oust my colleague from her job, she even had the replacement named! There it all was, the fully detailed plan. It even showed savings by employing someone to her position on a much lower salary!, Oh dear! I picked the thing up, and I posted it to my colleague who was by now suspended and trying to fight certain allegations. It certainly helped in that my colleague had decided she was so disgusted with the firm she had been loyal to for 12 years that she would never go back. She wanted to go through the appeal etc but didn;t even have to bother as she got a compromise agreement instead! Because of what she received in the post. What was in that notebook threw up all manner of employment issues.

 

I was pleased to help my colleague, I felt bad because I hadn't spoken up immediately when I should have done. I was overcome with glee to see this awful woman alternate between fits of sobbing, periods of steam almost coming out her ears, and trying to coerce people into telling her "what they knew"! That was the best bit, nobody but me knew and she obviously couldn't remember where she had left that book! She got into awful trouble but sadly they kept her on, under supervision for 12 weeks. I even managed to say to her with a poker face "what a dreadful thing to happen to you!". It was dreadful and she deserved it.

 

Hang on to those documents and the very best of luck x

[johnvernon74]

Could these emails be a way to possibly get a settlement?

[zoemk10]

Jackieandwayne- thank you & yes I will hang on to until ordered not to by a judge! Wishing you luck with your case & well done for be brave enough to stand up to a bully x

 

John- Im hoping it might help! We will see.

 

One question: op states she cannot talk about her case, it's never occurred to me that I should not talk about this on here. Am I doing wrong? I'm not naming them but should I change my user name to something less conspicuous?

 

Thanks x

[zoemk10]

Ps If I should change how do I do?

[stu007]

Hi zoe

 

if you want to change your user name its the site team that will help with that - just click the triangle to the bottom left of your posts and type your request to site team

[ms_smith]

Everyone is allowed to talk about their cases here but names, cities & specific dates need to stay hidden.

 

Do not let intimidation go over you, folks.

 

Speak about your cases here. Consult them here.

 

 

Zoe, not bad about the disclosure .

 

I know there were many opinions here about those e-mails but I think as long as they directly support your case and constitute evidence to your claims, then interests of justice would require they are referred to at the hearing as well.

 

What exactly these e-mails read?

[jackieandwayne]

Its very common practice for a "confidentiality clause" to be signed when there is an out of court settlement. This means that you cannot discuss what has happened to you because you have agreed not to say.

 

But in your case, so long as you say nothing that is untrue, slanderous or libelous, there's no problem in you posting on here. No need to openly disclose who the company is etc., but you are perfectly entitled to seek advice when these things happen and if that is on a forum like CAG then so be it. Be aware that employers can watch these threads too, so if you get to the stage where things get a bit contentious, then you wouldn't want to risk them reading all your tactics on here. I shouldn't say anything about CAG to anyone to do with this matter; and in any case, how many Zoe's might there be at anyone time seeking advice for employment problems?!

 

Also, I may well have reason to be grinning right now, but it took me three years of being genuinely ill, having a year on benefits (oh joy) which inlcuded the bloody ATOS shambles, I have PTSD for the rest of my life....................so please don;t be thinking its an easy road, its not, but if you have the determination that you seem to have Zoe, and you have genuinely been wronged, then you go ahead and fight it.

 

A word of warning too - don;t anyone rely on their Union for help with this sort of thing. See a solicitor straight away.

 

You keep going, and I'll keep reading!

[ms_smith]

so if you get to the stage where things get a bit contentious, then you wouldn't want to risk them reading all your tactics on here.

 

True. Very true.

[mariefab]

This is a long shot- but do you have anything that refers to this particular legal advice before the date that you received these 'interesting emails?

 

By that I mean something documented, like a mention of taking legal advice in the response to your appeal or in the ET3.

Because this could also be a route to waiver.

[elche]

Hmmm its been a while and Che's brain is dusty....... but to add my 2 pence worth I always thought that where admissibility of evidence was concerned the court (or tribunal as here), would be loathed to waive privilege where it concerns a client (your ex ER) and their sols.

 

I know that in my younger years I tried to include something similar in a costs hearing in county court - and received a stark reminder that this was not behaviour that endeared us to the court...... but that said is there a 'smoking gun' in there and if so could you attempt to get a PHR with the ET regarding this snippet using the interests of justice argument?

 

Or alternatively is there information in there that supports your case that you could prove from another non privileged source?

 

Dunno if this helps

[Gbarbm]

You may find it useful to read this case;

 

 

[1] See ITC Film Distributors v Video Exchange Ltd & Others [1982] 2 AER 241

[elche]

You may find it useful to read this case;

[1] See ITC Film Distributors v Video Exchange Ltd & Others [1982] 2 AER 241

 

Nice link - good overview of your case here

 

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1072

[Gbarbm]

Nice link - good overview of your case here

 

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1072

 

I love the bit about hiding pornographic literature in the bundle!

 

We have all, when reading through trial bundles, come across documents that just shouldn't be there. There is an apocryphal story of one solicitor who would bury pages of pornography deep within the files as a means of checking whether or not counsel actually bothered to read them. Sometimes, however, the buried treasure consists of documentation that ought to have been clothed in privilege

[elche]

I love the bit about hiding pornographic literature in the bundle!

 

I know fantastic story - I wonder if it is true?

 

Sorry OP but to digress there is a book full of courtroom anecdotes my favourite:

 

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?

A: No.

Q: Did you check for blood pressure?

A: No.

Q: Did you check for breathing?

A: No.

Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?

A: No.

Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?

A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.

 

U couldn't make it up!