Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for the above Andy. I’ve not stated to Shoosmiths that I have not signed the agreement, however at the time I didn’t really understand the agreement, it was just put in from of me, and told to sign. I did also sign a document saying it did not require legal representation.   What would you suggest as my next steps? 
    • Barclays have finally responded to my friend on this asking for  Date of birth, all previous addresses, any former names and account numbers she has.   I don’t think my friend included a council tax bill (I did when I sent my Dad’s DSAR to Barclays last week!).   Do they need all this info?
    • There is no statutory provision requiring a witness in these circumstances to be independent. However the purpose of having a witness is so that they can provide unbiased evidence of what was signed and by whom, if required in the future. Therefore a witness should be independent and it is best practice to interpret this widely. A witness should not be the signatory’s spouse or partner or a family member, and should not have a personal interest in the provisions of the document. Case law has confirmed that a party to the document cannot act as a witness to another party’s signature. It is advisable that a witness is aged eighteen or over.   More importantly ...One of the distinguishing factors about the execution of a deed as compared to a contract is that a deed must be “delivered”. Delivery fixes the date from which the executing party is bound by the deed, and once delivered, a deed is irrevocable in the absence of an express right of revocation. At common law, a deed is delivered when a party expresses an intention to be bound by the deed, even if it retains possession of the document.   The best way to deal with delivery of a deed is to have clear wording in the document setting out that the deed will be delivered on the date appearing at the head of the document. Where a deed is executed by a company, legislation provides that it is presumed to be delivered on execution, unless a contrary intention is proved. There is no such presumption for execution by an individual. Clear wording in the document confirming the position on delivery will avoid confusion and unintended consequences.   https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/signed-sealed-delivered-execution-of-deeds-and-documents-and-how-it-might-go-wrong/
    • ok increased to 3.5mb now and numbered and titled each page   FYI- the quality of the terms are unreadable even before scanning   thanks jpg2pdf(1).pdf
  • Our picks

    • Future Comms is a Big Con. How to get out of it. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417058-future-comms-is-a-big-con-how-to-get-out-of-it/
        • Thanks
      • 4 replies
    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 5 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
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 2371 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...