Employment Tribunal Hearing grounds of discrimination ( pregnancy )

[BazzaS]

This was what initially what they were pleading that the Company was not a limited company, and this was accepted.

 

If the company had been registered as s ltd, would that have made any difference?

 

Absolutely!. You would have to pursue the limited company, and not the director, who wouldn't be liable for the company's debts in the majority of circumstances.

[andydub64]

So any limited company would be registered with Companies House?

 

The judge at the pre trial checked whether the Company was a limited company by checking with Companies House, and was the first question she asked the respondents legal representative to establish, he stated it was not a limited company.

 

As part of the directions made was for the respondents legal representative to identify who was the legal entity of the claim, for the respondents.

 

They came back saying it was his wife who has nothing to do with the running of the company, i challenged, made application for the actual owner/boss to be named as first respondent, the Court on application named him as the respondent, so in theory and by the letter of the law the respondents cannot claim to be a limited company liable for any debts, which would include what my daughter has been awarded?, without (a) registering the Company (b) making application to the Court for the change of respondent?

 

I am just trying to cover all angles and i do not want a legal loophole to let this individual of the hook, because, he will try and avoid this if past experience is anything to go by.

[BazzaS]

So any limited company would be registered with Companies House?

 

The judge at the pre trial checked whether the Company was a limited company by checking with Companies House, and was the first question she asked the respondents legal representative to establish, he stated it was not a limited company.

 

As part of the directions made was for the respondents legal representative to identify who was the legal entity of the claim, for the respondents.

 

They came back saying it was his wife who has nothing to do with the running of the company, i challenged, made application for the actual owner/boss to be named as first respondent, the Court on application named him as the respondent, so in theory and by the letter of the law the respondents cannot claim to be a limited company liable for any debts, which would include what my daughter has been awarded?, without (a) registering the Company (b) making application to the Court for the change of respondent?

 

I am just trying to cover all angles and i do not want a legal loophole to let this individual of the hook, because, he will try and avoid this if past experience is anything to go by.

 

A GB limited company would be registered at companies house.

 

Put the companies name into CH's (free) webcheck service.

 

There could be 2 companies, one limited, one not with similar names, though e.g.

1) Bazza Blogs t/a BazzaCAG, and

2) BazzaCAG Ltd

 

Only the latter would need to be registered at CH.

[steampowered]

This was what initially what they were pleading that the Company was not a limited company, and this was accepted.

 

If the company had been registered as s ltd, would that have made any difference?

The point is more fundamental than that. If it isn't registered at Companies House, then it isn't actually a company. A company does not acquire legal personality until the point of registration.

 

Anything which is not registered at Companies House is just a trading name and has no bearing on legal liability.

 

the letter of the law the respondents cannot claim to be a limited company liable for any debts, which would include what my daughter has been awarded?, without (a) registering the Company (b) making application to the Court for the change of respondent?

Whoever/whatever is written on the judgment is who the judgment is against. There is no scope for going behind the judgment. If they believe the judgment to be wrongly entered, then they would need to appeal it within the 28 day time limit.

[andydub64]

If a company pleads and gives in evidence during proceedings, which would include a trial, that a person is the owner of the company, when this was not the case, what in terms do the opposite party have to do as to suggest such a misrepresentation, if established?

[BazzaS]

If a company pleads and gives in evidence during proceedings, which would include a trial, that a person is the owner of the company, when this was not the case, what in terms do the opposite party have to do as to suggest such a misrepresentation, if established?

 

What??

 

Your case was concluded.

You obtained a judgement in your party's favour.

That judgement named who it was against.

 

If the other side now wishes to argue against that, they would need to either appeal (within time), or seek a set-aside and make an application to the court. Have they done this?

 

As ever, the backstory to the question you are asking is important to enable a reply in context.

So, why are you asking?

 

Difficulties in enforcing judgement? : Tell us what is going on.

Wanting to "go after the other side"? : you have your judgement, enforce it and move on ........

[andydub64]

Hi, i am not wanting to go after the other side, trust me, i want this to conclude.

 

On the judgement letter received from the Tribunal, the two parties are named at the top, my daughter and her boss MR K ----------- as the correctly named respondent.

 

However on close inspection and under the judgement the two parties names are my daughter and MRS C ------------- who is not the correctly named as the respondent??

 

To remove any doubt, his wife has no interest or has anything to do with the business, and any assets would be in his name not hers, maybe there lies the motive.

 

The judgement and any order should be against Mr not Mrs.

[andydub64]

So if that is what they are claiming, which is a load of nonsense, his wife will in any event, have all the material of fact and evidence to show the Court/s/Tribunal that on or before the date my daughter was unfairly dismissed she was in full control of the business. Lets see.

[andydub64]

Financial Regulations Authority have provided data that would suggest the respondents wife, who they are now maintaining is the first respondent is and has been inactive ith the Company since 2007.

 

The point that i am trying to make is that my daughters boss is trying to place any liability to awards on his wife, rather than himself as the individual named as the legal entity during proceedings.

 

What concerns me is that the judgement names his wife as respondent, which is incorrect, but none the less on that judgement.

[BazzaS]

Financial Regulations Authority have provided data that would suggest the respondents wife, who they are now maintaining is the first respondent is and has been inactive ith the Company since 2007.

 

The point that i am trying to make is that my daughters boss is trying to place any liability to awards on his wife, rather than himself as the individual named as the legal entity during proceedings.

 

What concerns me is that the judgement names his wife as respondent, which is incorrect, but none the less on that judgement.

 

"Financial Regulations Authority have provided data".... which financial regulation authority?.

 

who has the assets? him or his wife?. Go after the one you can recover the assets from, unless the threat of making him bankrupt is your main lever to get them to pay up!

[steampowered]

On the judgement letter received from the Tribunal, the two parties are named at the top, my daughter and her boss MR K ----------- as the correctly named respondent.

 

However on close inspection and under the judgement the two parties names are my daughter and MRS C ------------- who is not the correctly named as the respondent??

 

I don't understand what you mean by this. What, exactly, does the judgment actually say? It may help if you are able to type out exactly what the judgment says (of course without the actual surname of the individuals involved).

 

If a judgment is given against person X, it is a judgment against person X. There should be no scope for ambiguity about this. Extraneous stuff about what company was running when, or what a regulator says, doesn't matter. When you are enforcing a judgment the ONLY thing that matters is what is written in the judgment - there is no scope to go behind the judgment at the enforcement stage.

 

There would not be any particular 'motive' by anyone to do anything when preparing the judgment. The judgment would have been produced by the Tribunal, not by the respondent.

 

Please note that the judgment and the written reasons for that judgment are not the same thing. The judgment is simply the judgment; the written reasons are separate.

[andydub64]

Thanks for your reply Steampowered.

 

I am going to try and explain what i am getting at, lets say the individual's motive was to get away with being liable for paying any judgement award, i would assume that there are ways in which this could be achieved, by liquidating his company, which would mean his company getting away with paying judgement, whilst i am not qualified this is a normal practice by companies or owners of companies to get out of paying.

 

Knowing this and knowing the individual, i made application under ETA rule 34 for the individual to replace his company as respondents, application to replace company was granted by the Court, so LLB the company was removed and Mr Smith, the owner of the Company was named respondent, as opposed to his company.

 

Mr Smith, and is legal representatives also name Mrs Smith as a respondent to proceedings, so the case is now deemed as Daughter v Mr Smith and others (Mrs Smith)

 

Mrs Smith has nothing to do with Mr Smiths employing or dismissing my daughter, but they are now claiming Mr Smith was employed by Mrs Smith when my daughter was sacked which would now make Mrs Smith liable

 

In a nutshell, instead of Mr Smith using his company as a means of shifting liability which i stopped, in effect he is now claiming is wife owned the company that dismissed my daughter, which is nonsense and not the case.

 

All corrospondence from the Tribunal had the case reading My Daughter ( Claimant ) v Mr Smith and others ( Respondents ) after my application under rule 34.

 

The judgement now reads My Daughter ( Claimant ) v Mrs Smith and others which would include Mr Smith ( others )

 

Which begs the question why name Mrs Smith as being the first respondent or any respondent for that matter, if she had nothing to do with the company who unfairly dismissed my daughter?

[steampowered]

I agree that is a bit strange, although it is more like to be the tribunal making a mistake rather than anything else. What is the precise wording of the tribunal order?

[andydub64]

The letter heading under the date reads My Daughter v Mr Smith and others, directly under that it states EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL JUDGEMENT 10.6 Judgement cover letter- rule 61

 

However on the next page JUDGEMENT WITH REASONS-rule 62 it reads My Daughter v Mrs Smith t/a the company that i had removed under rule 34.

[andydub64]

Maybe Mrs Smith needs to show the Courts and others, proof and documentations that she would have in her possession that would quite clearly show her involvement with my daughters employment and dismissal, should not pose a problem, if true, which is denied.

[andydub64]

Could someone please advice me of the term STATUS "inactive" which is showing on the Financial Service register.

 

The register also indicates that Mrs Smith was the Company's CF7 sole trader start date 09/02/2005 end date 31/02/2007.

 

Would this information/data establish Mrs Smiths involvement with the company ended on 31/02/2007?

[steampowered]

Maybe Mrs Smith needs to show the Courts and others, proof and documentations that she would have in her possession that would quite clearly show her involvement with my daughters employment and dismissalicon, should not pose a problem, if true, which is denied.

Noone has to show anything. The case is over. The judgment has been issued. There is no more scope to change the judgment, except for an appeal issued within the relevant timeframe.

 

Could someone please advice me of the term STATUS "inactive" which is showing on the Financial Service register.

 

The register also indicates that Mrs Smith was the Company's CF7 sole trader start date 09/02/2005 end date 31/02/2007.

 

Would this information/data establish Mrs Smiths involvement with the company ended on 31/02/2007?

All irrelevant. None of this matters anymore as the case is over.

 

However on the next page JUDGEMENT WITH REASONS-rule 62 it reads My Daughter v Mrs Smith t/a the company that i had removed under rule 34.

Is there an order which says something like 'Respondent to pay amount of £xxx?

[andydub64]

I would assume giving false information and claiming an individual is liable for any judgement would warrant proof if a blatant misrepresentation during proceedings, and whether those proceedings have concluded or not, would imo not be a defence if what i believe has gone on.

 

Mr Smith told the judge that he worked for Mrs Smith, in his judgement the judge clearly indicates it was established that Mrs Smith owned the company, the judge has been giving false and very misleading evidence as to affect not only the outcome, which was proved in evidence, but also any liability as to pay my daughter.

 

His actions were quite deliberate and false fabrication of facts to influence, or try to influence the ends of justice are very serious, a boss got a lengthy custodial sentence for giving a false statement as to influence a judgement, i would deem stating an individual owning a company and under oath is as serious, if not more serious giving the circumstances.

 

I would assume that noone is above the law, that would include Mr Smith, a private prosecution will now be launched and i do not forsee any great difficulty in establishing the offences that have been committed, quite the reverse, based on the material i now have in my possesion which shows Mr Smith has lied.

[steampowered]

I don't think there is any point re-opening this stuff now. That is what the hearing was for - so that the judge could hear the evidence on each side and make a decision.

 

Why don't you ask the other side for payment, and them go ahead with enforcement if they don't pay within the relevant deadline. You can enforce Employment Tribunal orders through the county courts.

[andydub64]

They seem to treat the legal system with the same contempt that was shown to my daughter.

 

They have had countless opportunities to put right, the wrong, i will just take it to the next level now, i have spoken to the Court and i do not need to give the respondent nor their representative any notification, enough is enough now, we are going to start calling all the shots now.

[steampowered]

Sounds good. Have a read of http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex328-eng.pdf.

 

I reckon the easiest method of enforcement is to use HCEOs, which is fairly straightforward - see http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex727-eng.pdf.

[andydub64]

Thanks for that Steampowered.

 

If the respondent claims to have no assets but his wife has the means and assets to cover a judgement debt, can the debt be recovered from the spouse?

[steampowered]

If the tribunal order is against the spouse, yes. If the tribunal order is not against the spouse, no.

[BazzaS]

Thanks for that Steampowered.

 

If the respondent claims to have no assets but his wife has the means and assets to cover a judgement debt, can the debt be recovered from the spouse?

 

if he has no assets, and the judegement is against him : how badly would he want to avoid being made bankrupt?.

However, you keep saying the judgement is against the wife : so, the same applies, but:

a) does the wife have assets,

b) if her job is as a financial advisor, would the threat of bankruptcy be a good lever??

[andydub64]

His wife, who as i see matters, is being used by the respondent and his legal adviser as being responsible for employing and dismissing my daughter which was most certainly not the case, as a bad medical condition, which as i understand led to her leaving the company in 2007, this is somewhat supported by the data registry of FRA which shows she left the company in 2007 and under the register deemed inactive as to the company or any other company, for that matter.

 

He used my daughter andtreated her with contempt, from where i am sat, it would appear that using his sick wife who has a long term illness for his wrongs, shows just hat we are up against, he is a vile person.