Jump to content


David Webb

Without prejudice - save as to costs letter

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2497 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,

After a little help, my wife is currently going through a tribunal claim for constructive dismissal/sex discrimination by her previous employer, she has recently had a face to face CMD, the judge has said she does not have to pay a deposit & there is no need for a pre-hearing review as he sees the case as "black & white"

Yesterday she received a letter from her previous employers with the above title & this is what t they have said:

 

 

"Further to the case management discussion held at London South Employment tribunal on xxxxx, I now fully appreciate how you argue your case in relation to your sex discrimination & constructive dismissal claims.

Having considered your case I am afraid xxxxx cannot accept your case as you suggest it to be.

It is our contention that your case is misconceived. you reply on the fact that you were not able to return to work on the same contractual hours prior to you going on maternity leave. We are confident that we will be able to prove to the tribunal that you were offered the right to return to work on the same terms as requested.

Accordingly & having regard to the CMD on xxxxx, we write to advise you that under rule 40 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution & Rules Procedures) Regulations 2004, a Tribunal Judge can make an order for costs where the "..Bringing or conducting of proceedings has been misconceived", for these purposes, misconceived means the claim has no reasonable prospect of success.

In light of the above, we would invite you to withdraw your claim as we believe it to be misconceived. If you decide to continue your claim, then we put you on notice that we shall make a costs application against you at the final hearing, you should be aware that Tribunals can award up to £20,000 for wasted costs. We reserve the right to show this letter to the Tribunal on the question of costs."

 

 

Does this sound like a Tactic to get my wife to drop the claim?

 

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they are trying to scare you off. Don't let them. Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou - I thought that was the case, especially as the Respondents solicitors asked the judge for a pre-hearing & for my wife to pay a deposit & the Judge said no to both this will go straight to a full hearing as it is "Black & white"( this gave my wife a good "Hint" that she has a good case against her former employers)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Costs orders are rarely granted anyway. Bully boy tactics trying to scare off the little people!!

 

Go get em!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your wife's only complaint is that she was expected to work changed contractual hours on her return from mat. leave and her employer can prove that either this wasn't the case or they offered her the hours she requested; it's a fair warning.

 

Otherwise, probably a scare tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was not her only complaint, but this letter is from her HR Officer & they usually miss out stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ET has already refused to grant a PHR or deposit order, that means the claims do have relevant prospects of success, which means costs can't be awarded on that basis!

 

Their letter is therefore non sensical and a scare tactic. If they aren't prepared to openly threaten costs (ie not on a without prejudice basis) then don't worry at this stage.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the ET has already refused to grant a PHR or deposit order, that means the claims do have relevant prospects of success, which means costs can't be awarded on that basis!

 

Their letter is therefore non sensical and a scare tactic. If they aren't prepared to openly threaten costs (ie not on a without prejudice basis) then don't worry at this stage.

 

Thanks Becky - That's what I told the wife, the Judge said it doesn't need to go to a pre-hearing & you don't have to make a deposit, these 2 things normally mean there is little chance of success!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This letter has exactly the same wording as a letter I received from my respondent, coincidentally enough in the same tribunal offices!!!

 

Is the company by any chance a very large , multi billion pound, well known company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...