Employment Tribunal Hearing grounds of discrimination ( pregnancy )

[andydub64]

You asked for an opinion, and i gave you the opinion, if i knew who had the assets i would not need a court to enforce the order, and chance his wife owns what he and the judge are saying, he does not own.

 

Now if i go after the wife for assets, and she has none, the judgement will be just that, a judgement.

 

But if i appeal on the order that was made, pre-trial, Mr and Mrs will both be liable, in any event, because it was Mr Smith and others ( Mrs Smith ) who were clearly named as respondent/S, so therefore both if not one, will be liable as to compensate my daughter for a disgusting act, that leaves a pregnant woman, who at that material time, bein a position where they should be protected, and not shafted by some two bob employer who's morals sink that low he needs to rely on his ill wife, rather than except the wrong which he is obviously running from.

[BazzaS]

You asked for an opinion, and i gave you the opinion, if i knew who had the assets i would not need a court to enforce the order, and chance his wife owns what he and the judge are saying, he does not own.

 

No, we asked for the facts re: who has the assets.

 

If you don't even know there are assets, then you may have a judgement in your favour, but that is useless if you can't enforce it.

 

As for " if i knew who had the assets i would not need a court to enforce the order" : That isn't correct.

I know Sir Richard Branson has assets. I would still need a court order to have some claim over those assets, I can't just slide on up to him and say "I know you have assets, pass them over!" and expect him to do so.

 

"and chance his wife owns what he and the judge are saying, he does not own." : say what?. I'm not sure this makes any sense.

Additionally, the judge isn't "saying what someone owns" ; the judge isn't saying who has assets : That is not their role.

The judge says who has the liability, which is completely independant of who may or may not have assets.

 

I fear you remain confused on the role of the court / tribunal / judge. It is to reach a judicial decision. This may coincide with what is morally correct and "just" (hopefully!), but doesn't always do so. They also don't decide on who has assets, only who is liable.

 

 

Now if i go after the wife for assets, and she has none, the judgement will be just that, a judgement.

 

Wow, finally something that is sensible and correct ..... you had to get something right eventually, if only based on "if you say enough random statements, some will be correct, by law of averages".

 

But if i appeal on the order that was made, pre-trial,

 

More nonsense ; how do you come up with this?.

It is nonsensical because : No judgment order was made pre-trial. The order was made to conclude the trial!.

 

Mr and Mrs will both be liable, in any event, because it was Mr Smith and others ( Mrs Smith ) who were clearly named as respondent/S, so therefore both if not one, will be liable as to compensate my daughter for a disgusting act, that leaves a pregnant woman, who at that material time, bein a position where they should be protected, and not shafted by some two bob employer who's morals sink that low he needs to rely on his ill wife, rather than except the wrong which he is obviously running from.

 

Ohh, we are back to obsessing on Mr Smith again?. ("who's morals sink that low he needs to rely on his ill wife")

 

I'm sorry it still hasn't sunk in for you yet : What matters is who is named on the judgement order, not who you feel is morally responsible.

 

If that is the wife and she has assets you can recover against, that is how your daughter gets her compensation.

If the wife (and the business, if they are also named) have no assets, then what becomes important is if the husband has assets.

 

If the husband has assets (and not the wife / the business), you need to seek the judgement be made against him (and it isn't judicial review for how you'd achieve this).

If none of them have assets : don't waste any more time, as you'll not get anything : no matter who the judgment is against, you'll not recover, and you'll still feel he / she / they have "got away with it".

 

So, who has the assets (since you still haven't answered).

If you don;t know, don;t you think you should have tried to find out before the hearing to allow you to advise your daughter if it was worth going through the stress of the hearing?.

[BazzaS]

Bazza, i have come on this forum for advice, not to be questioned as if i have done something wrong, wind your neck in.

 

Damn those contributors, asking questions (so as to be able to give reliable answers).

 

Sorry to have to ask questions (that are required to give an answer that is more than a guess) ; it is just my crystal ball is in at the mechanics for servicing - the gearbox failed when I was using it to try to gather information to answer your queries, as you'd given so little useful detail (regarding both assets & the judgement)

[andydub64]

Damn those contributors, asking questions (so as to be able to give reliable answers).

 

Sorry to have to ask questions (that are required to give an answer that is more than a guess) ; it is just my crystal ball is in at the mechanics for servicing - the gearbox failed when I was using it to try to gather information to answer your queries, as you'd given so little useful detail (regarding both assets & the judgement)

 

I fail to see any logics, or benefit for that matter, as to keep repeating myself, whilst you consider what you feel is right, its irrelevant.

One of the forums advisor's has worked the situation out, and has on a couple of occasions, explained yo you, where you are going wrong.

 

Mr and Mrs Smith both have assets, Mr and Mrs Smith were named as respondents, so both are liable, the judge has in judgement and without reason, yet knowing this to be a significant fact, has removed from proceedings Mr Smith, in removing Mr Smith this would ultimately deny any rights i had as to establish if Mr Smith, has assets- "are you still with me"??? which leaves just Mrs Smith, who and according to data has nothing to do with the business.

 

So why remove the person who clearly has an interest in the business, and add a person who on paper has nothing to do with the company, as being liable in any event??

 

Mrs Smith ( the ill wife ) left the company who sacked my daughter in 2007, so why are you and the judge for that matter advocating she is liable, a respondent or the person with to enforce against if the evidence demonstrates she has nothing to do the employment of my daughter, quite the reverse.

[BazzaS]

I fail to see any logics, or benefit for that matter, as to keep repeating myself, whilst you consider what you feel is right, its irrelevant.

One of the forums advisor's has worked the situation out, and has on a couple of occasions, explained yo you, where you are going wrong.

 

Mr and Mrs Smith both have assets, Mr and Mrs Smith were named as respondents, so both are liable, the judge has in judgement and without reason, yet knowing this to be a significant fact, has removed from proceedings Mr Smith, in removing Mr Smith this would ultimately deny any rights i had as to establish if Mr Smith, has assets- "are you still with me"??? which leaves just Mrs Smith, who and according to data has nothing to do with the business.

 

So why remove the person who clearly has an interest in the business, and add a person who on paper has nothing to do with the company, as being liable in any event??

 

Mrs Smith ( the ill wife ) left the company who sacked my daughter in 2007, so why are you and the judge for that matter advocating she is liable, a respondent or the person with to enforce against if the evidence demonstrates she has nothing to do the employment of my daughter, quite the reverse.

 

It isn't "what I feel is right" (nor does it matter what you think is right!) : what matters is what the judgment order says.

 

I'm not saying she is liable : the judgment order is.

 

I'm not saying Mr Smith is liable : and neither is the judgment order!

 

You say Mrs Smith has assets : recover against them, then.

 

Why try to get an order for recovery against Mr Smith if you can recover in full with the order you have?

[Emmzzi]

Until you have evidence (not opinion) about who actually owns the business (as opposed to being employed by it), I do not believe anyone can assist further.

 

Perhaps return when you have that. I have suggested a number of lines of enquiry.

[andydub64]

Would a company or any individual associated with the company need to be insured as a compulsory measure to trade in finance, and in the event of a claim, covered?, for example indemnity insurance?

 

If an individual or a company are under a Regulation that covers finance, is there a compulsory obligation to have in place, insurance.

[andydub64]

Until you have evidence (not opinion) about who actually owns the business (as opposed to being employed by it), I do not believe anyone can assist further.

 

Perhaps return when you have that. I have suggested a number of lines of enquiry.

 

Thanks for the advice, and if i can think of any more evidence, rather than opinion, i will politely ask, for that advice, again, thanks.

[BazzaS]

Would a company or any individual associated with the company need to be insured as a compulsory measure to trade in finance, and in the event of a claim, covered?, for example indemnity insurance?

 

If an individual or a company are under a Regulation that covers finance, is there a compulsory obligation to have in place, insurance.

 

You'd need to consider what (if there is any insurance) the insurance indemnified against.

So, an accountant's professional indemnity insurance might cover the losses arising from the accountant giving a client negligent advice but wouldn't necessarily cover the accountant wrongfully dismissing an employee. Indemnity insurance is insurance for the risks undertaken in their professional practice (e.g. Accountancy advice) and doesn't have to cover all risks of their business's activity.

 

Why does indemnity insurance come into this at all if you have a judgment order against Mrs Smith and she has sufficient assets for you to recover the judgment sum?

 

You've had the judgment the 14 days (from 25th Feb). Why don't you just enforce it?

[Ganymede]

You asked for an opinion, and i gave you the opinion, if i knew who had the assets i would not need a court to enforce the order, and chance his wife owns what he and the judge are saying, he does not own.

 

Now if i go after the wife for assets, and she has none, the judgement will be just that, a judgement.

 

But if i appeal on the order that was made, pre-trial, Mr and Mrs will both be liable, in any event, because it was Mr Smith and others ( Mrs Smith ) who were clearly named as respondent/S, so therefore both if not one, will be liable as to compensate my daughter for a disgusting act, that leaves a pregnant woman, who at that material time, bein a position where they should be protected, and not shafted by some two bob employer who's morals sink that low he needs to rely on his ill wife, rather than except the wrong which he is obviously running from.

 

Why are you 100% sure the husband is the owner?

 

What proof do you have?

[andydub64]

Why are you 100% sure the husband is the owner?

 

What proof do you have?

 

I could have proof that shows 100% that the wife is not the owner, respondent, that is what we are disputing.

[andydub64]

You'd need to consider what (if there is any insurance) the insurance indemnified against.

So, an accountant's professional indemnity insurance might cover the losses arising from the accountant giving a client negligent advice but wouldn't necessarily cover the accountant wrongfully dismissing an employee. Indemnity insurance is insurance for the risks undertaken in their professional practice (e.g. Accountancy advice) and doesn't have to cover all risks of their business's activity.

 

Why does indemnity insurance come into this at all if you have a judgment order against Mrs Smith and she has sufficient assets for you to recover the judgment sum?

 

You've had the judgment the 14 days (from 25th Feb). Why don't you just enforce it?

 

We have.

[BazzaS]

We have.

 

So, was the enforcement successful?

If so, why do you care about eg indemnity insurance?

[Ganymede]

I could have proof that shows 100% that the wife is not the owner, respondent, that is what we are disputing.

 

What proof do you have that she is not the owner?

 

If you want to have the judgment changed to the husband you'll need to prove that he is the owner, or one of the owners.

[andydub64]

So, was the enforcement successful?

If so, why do you care about eg indemnity insurance?

 

I dont care about indemnity insurance, i have just asked if a financial company have to have insurance would have to be insured in the event of a claim against them, and used indemnity insurance as an example of insurance.

[andydub64]

What proof do you have that she is not the owner?

 

If you want to have the judgment changed to the husband you'll need to prove that he is the owner, or one of the owners.

 

No i do not, the husband is the respondent, not the company, the company was removed under Rule 34, so any judgement award, would be against the husband, as he is the respondent!, whether he is the owner of the company or not is irrelevent.

[BazzaS]

I dont care about indemnity insurance, i have just asked if a financial company have to have insurance would have to be insured in the event of a claim against them, and used indemnity insurance as an example of insurance.

 

So, was the enforcement successful?

If so, why do you care about the (non-indemnity, then) insurance?

 

Insurance is still irrelevant, if you recover in full against the wife!

[honeybee13]

No i do not, the husband is the respondent, not the company, the company was removed under Rule 34, so any judgement award, would be against the husband, as he is the respondent!, whether he is the owner of the company or not is irrelevent.

 

andydub, to save me re-reading a lot of this thread, could you remind me/us who the judgement was against please?

 

HB

[BazzaS]

No i do not, the husband is the respondent, not the company, the company was removed under Rule 34, so any judgement award, would be against the husband, as he is the respondent!, whether he is the owner of the company or not is irrelevent.

 

Part 34 deals with witnesses (and evidence / witnesses out of jurisdiction)

Do you mean (for addition / substitution of parties) : CPR 19 & 20? Specifically PD 19A (1.1) ??

 

Or are you referring to a ruling on WITNESSES rather than parties to the claim, where it would be CPR 34.......?

[Ganymede]

No i do not, the husband is the respondent, not the company, the company was removed under Rule 34, so any judgement award, would be against the husband, as he is the respondent!, whether he is the owner of the company or not is irrelevent.

 

You are not making any sense.

 

You say the husband is the owner of the company so it is entirely relevant.

 

If the husband is not the owner then you have no claim against him and he can be replaced as the defendant.

 

So who is the owner and why are you so sure it's not the wife?

[Ganymede]

Part 34 deals with witnesses (and evidence / witnesses out of jurisdiction)

Do you mean (for addition / substitution of parties) : CPR 19 & 20? Specifically PD 19A (1.1) ??

 

Or are you referring to a ruling on WITNESSES rather than parties to the claim, where it would be CPR 34.......?

 

She's referring to the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules, not the Civil Procedure Rules.

[BazzaS]

You are not making any sense.

 

You say the husband is the owner of the company so it is entirely relevant.

 

If the husband is not the owner then you have no claim against him and he can be replaced as the defendant.

 

So who is the owner and why are you so sure it's not the wife?

 

"Hush now, how dare you say there is no claim against Mr Smith!"

He is a very nasty man (apparently), and there must be a claim against him, even if he is just an employee of the business!!

 

The thing is : we just don't know Mr Smith's status.

All we know is the OP is desperate to have him "held accountable", but for whatever reason(s) the award was made against Mrs Smith.

The OP hasn't actually provided FACTS to show Mr Smith is more than an employee, and it appears the OP didn't convince the court / tribunal, either.

[determindator]

I've been reading this thread and I hope the enforcement process is speedy for your daughter.

[andydub64]

I've been reading this thread and I hope the enforcement process is speedy for your daughter.

 

Thank you,she has the main objective, judgement,and freezing the assets might speed up the enforcement, its the morals of the way a young pregnant lady was hung out

 

However giving some of the comments made lately, you would have thought that the person who sacked her, was the victim, which is deemed as normal if he does not have the title or assets,his bank will now show if that is the case, which I very much doubt.

[BazzaS]

Thank you,she has the main objective, judgement,and freezing the assets might speed up the enforcement, its the morals of the way a young pregnant lady was hung out

 

However giving some of the comments made lately, you would have thought that the person who sacked her, was the victim, which is deemed as normal if he does not have the title or assets,his bank will now show if that is the case, which I very much doubt.

 

The employment tribunal and courts are for ensuring law is complied with.

They can't "punish" (e.g, by imprisonment), but can compensate those wronged.

 

If your daughter recovers the judgement from the wife / business, this is either because:

A) he is using his wife as a "front", and / or

B) he is in fact only an employee .....

 

If A) then enforcing on the wife / business still hits him in the pocket, while

If B) if he is just an employee then it's up to the employer to discipline him for his wrongful act(s), and the loss they have caused the business.

 

At some stage, you are just going to have to accept:

A) the financial compensation is the "punishment", and you can't force anything more from the situation

B) Once your daughter recovers the judgement sum, whoever she recovers it from : it is then up to the wife / the business to "punish" Mr Smith - you need to focus on recovering the judgement sum (no matter which party you get to enforce it from)

 

Otherwise you'll always end up ruminating on "how he has got away with it"...........