Respondent demanding £800 by Monday

[BlindVision]

Your lawyer is mistaken, not very good at her job and has caused this current problem.

After you told her that you'd complained to HMRC and they were investigating she should have kept her mouth shut about it.

You would have signed the agreement as it was. If they were subsequently prosecuted and you were a witness the agreement would not have been breached

Instead she chose to tip them off. I can only conclude that this is because she doesn't know or understand the legislation covering protected disclosure and feels that HMRC are perfectly happy to have their investgations revealed to the potential defendants.

Her job is to advise you about the meaning of the written agreement.

It's no part of her remit to worry about what happens to the Respondent after it's signed.

 

In this context *a matter arising from your employment* would be the claims that you are making at the ET, and any other potential employment related claims that you are currently aware of in which you would be the claimant.

 

The HMRC complaint is not a matter arising from your employment.

I don't know much about your line of work, but I know that HMRC has regulatory powers.

They will investigate and, if appropriate, HMRC will bring claims against your former employer.

How do you suppose HMRC (or anyone else for that matter) would view your conduct if, after your lawyer informed your former employer of your complaints, you (a potential witness against them) disclosed to the party under investigation details of the complaints and the evidence against them.

 

P.S. Where did you get the idea that the claimant produces and/or pays for the bundle?

In Employment tribunal claims the bundle is almost always produced and paid for by the Respondent employer.

Have you received the bundle yet?

 

I received the bundle pronto after the tribunal order.

 

This whole thing has left me exhausted. I am hardly able to move.

 

Yes, the issues are the same as in the claim. If the cot3 is botched, then my et1 schedule of loss is far higher (the reality) than what - I thought, kindly - I agreed to settle for, subject to agreement of contract.

 

They are panicking like mad as they see the tribunal as "soft law" which they can blag their way through.

 

With the regulators they are dealing with people who understand thoroughly the technical and ethical issues; they won't be able to pull the wool over their eyes. They cannot buy their way out of it, either, as they can a tribunal. To be fair, she has only just met me and knows nothing about my case, apart from what the other lawyer told her, heavily hyped.

 

steampowered, the lawyer refused to look at the documents as I said I was not ready to release them without further consideration, so presumably lawyers have a similar code of conduct re confidential material as other professions?

 

Do the words "private & confidential" have any legal meaning?

[steampowered]

steampowered, the lawyer refused to look at the documents as I said I was not ready to release them without further consideration, so presumably lawyers have a similar code of conduct re confidential material as other professions?

 

Do the words "private & confidential" have any legal meaning?

Lawyers owe their clients a duty of confidentiality. They do not owe a similar duty of confidentiality to third parties or the regulator. If you have a read of http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/part4/content.page which is the section of the applicable code of conduct applicable to how solicitors deal with their regulator, there is nothing about this.

 

There might be something different in the rules for accountants but to be honest I doubt it. The rules for solicitors tend to be stricter than the rules for other professions.

 

Private & confidential doesn't really have a particular legal meaning. It is also not a defence to having to disclose documents in legal proceedings - correspondence with the regulator is not 'privileged'. If a court/tribunal case was brought and the correspondence was relevant to that case - for example, if you were sued for defamation - you would be legally required to hand all of it over. The regulator will know this.

[BlindVision]

That's correct, the issues were already raised with them. I know a court can order disclosure, and I would disclose, subject to advice, should the hearing go ahead, especially as it strengthens my case. I am still unsure whether to disclose the documents at this stage. I can see the r's going into orbit and seeking retribution, as that is their MO.

 

Thanks, steampowered. However, still scratching my head. Will suggest the confidentiality clause. Seeing the lawyer tomorrow with a view to finalising.

 

Thanks, all!