Employment Tribunal Hearing grounds of discrimination ( pregnancy )

[andydub64]

Please do check back in - I know I sound frustrated but it's only because I want to help!

 

I know everyone on here is trying to help, and trust me, we appreciate all the valid advice, which without, would leave us in a far weaker position.

 

The Company,, its owners are financial brokers, so i would have assumed they would have capital, they work from their own home, have a couple of new cars, and employ their two sons.

 

The problem that i foresee, is that giving their profession, if such a profession could somehow wriggle out of paying the debt, this lot would not be far from the top of that list, imo, or maybe i am being over cautious.

[Emmzzi]

I know everyone on here is trying to help, and trust me, we appreciate all the valid advice, which without, would leave us in a far weaker position.

 

The Company,, its owners are financial brokers, so i would have assumed they would have capital, they work from their own home, have a couple of new cars, and employ their two sons.

 

The problem that i foresee, is that giving their profession, if such a profession could somehow wriggle out of paying the debt, this lot would not be far from the top of that list, imo, or maybe i am being over cautious.

 

opinions again.. get facts.... send someone in for a quote and see who is down as the owners on the paperwork they get given?

[andydub64]

opinions again.. get facts.... send someone in for a quote and see who is down as the owners on the paperwork they get given?

 

Would a letter from the Department for work and pension, repayment of benefit from the compensation award be proof of who has to pay.

 

If they are minded and ordered by the DWP to pay them out of the compensation, that same obligation or liability would also include my daughter, by the name on the letter from DWP.

 

Going by the letter the company and Mr Smith are the named respondents for the debt.

[andydub64]

Would a letter from the Department for work and pension, repayment of benefit from the compensation award be proof of who has to pay.

 

If they are minded and ordered by the DWP to pay them out of the compensation, that same obligation or liability would also include my daughter, by the name on the letter from DWP.

 

Going by the letter the company and Mr Smith are the named respondents for the debt.

 

This letter shows who the debtor is, and it is not Mrs Smith, as i have been saying all along.

[Emmzzi]

This letter shows who the debtor is, and it is not Mrs Smith, as i have been saying all along.

 

I've no idea what kind of letter you are talking about, this seems to be new information.

[andydub64]

I've no idea what kind of letter you are talking about, this seems to be new information.

 

It is a letter from the DWP, DEBT MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION RECOVER UNIT, for the respondent to pay a fixed amount as t recover the benefits my daughter had to claim because of being dismissed and in receipt of welfare benefits.

 

What they paid my daughter for benefits is recoverable from the compensation that is awarded to her, in this case £570, so the debtor from any compensation that he is ordered to pay, he has to pay out of the compensation owed back to the DWP the £570, the remaining amount left after the DWP have been paid back will go to my daughter, by the debtor identified now by the DWP.

[Emmzzi]

and how did they place him as the respondent?

 

ETA

 

Sorry, just noticed "THE COMPANY and Mr Smith are named." So once again if she owns the company it comes from her - he's just the clerk.

 

You have no proof that she does NOT own the company so I've no idea why you are so hung up on it but at this stage it defies logic. Why not just ask her how she'll be paying?

[andydub64]

The Company was removed, pursuant to an application under rule 34, the DWP have been notified.

 

Which leaves Mr Smith, I do not need to prove Mrs Smith does not own the company, the debtor and who has been ordered to pay back tax paying funding has now been identified, as Mr Smith, unless the DWP have got it all wrong, which I doubt.

[BazzaS]

The Company was removed, pursuant to an application under rule 34, the DWP have been notified.

 

Which leaves Mr Smith, I do not need to prove Mrs Smith does not own the company, the debtor and who has been ordered to pay back tax paying funding has now been identified, as Mr Smith, unless the DWP have got it all wrong, which I doubt.

 

 

What the DWP write isn't the same as having a judgement in that persons name.

 

Who are the parties named on the judgement?

Do any of them coincide with the assets?

No matter what letters from the DWP you bring forward, these are what matters unless you get the judgement amended.

 

You may feel Mr Smith is the debtor, but what are you going to do if;

a) he is the only party with the assets, yet

b) isn't named on the judgement ....

(& please don't say 'judicial review', just because you heard the phrase once.....)

 

What are you going to do if he hasn't got assets? You still haven't said which party has the assets.

 

A judgement with no plan to enforce it is a Pyrrhic victory.

[Emmzzi]

Ok. I am bowing out. You are providing no new evidence and we're going round in circles.

 

Good luck, interested to learn what happens but we can't go on with you saying black and me saying white!

[Ganymede]

I can possibly help with the CRU/DWP point, they won't have done any of their own investigations or really care what Defendant has to pay back the recoverable benefits.

 

The CRU will have just been going on what they were told originally that Mr Smith and the Company were the Defendant.

 

 

It's meaningless when establishing the legal owner of the Company.

[andydub64]

I can possibly help with the CRU/DWP point, they won't have done any of their own investigations or really care what Defendant has to pay back the recoverable benefits.

 

The CRU will have just been going on what they were told originally that Mr Smith and the Company were the Defendant.

 

 

It's meaningless when establishing the legal owner of the Company.

 

So it is not in the interest of the public, who the debtor now owes, out of public funding used, to establish who the legal owner is?, with the greatest of respect, their interset and the fact that they would have an obligation as to recover any public fund owed, would, and that process would include establishing the legal owner who would be responsible for the debt.

 

In a nutshell, who ever is responsible for paying the debt, ( MR Smith ) will and i will make sure, have to show and convince, with evidence beyond any proof that he is not that person who has now been ordered to pay public funding back, as a direct result of his discriminating actions.

[Ganymede]

No, the CRU are not interested as long as they get paid back.

 

They only state Mr Smith and the Company on their letters because that is what they were told at the start of the Court claim.

 

The CRU do not investigate any further than that.

[andydub64]

If Mr Smith wants to adopted the same stance, as has been evident since the case was won, by shifting any liabilities onto someone else ( his ill wife ) he will not have any difficulty in proving this, to those who are employed by the government as to recover from the legal owner, and i would assume, not some made up legal owner once it was established that he was guilty.

 

I am currently in correspondence with the DWP, who have now been provided with a chronology of events which would include any misrepresentations.

[BazzaS]

So it is not in the interest of the public, who the debtor now owes, out of public funding used, to establish who the legal owner is?, with the greatest of respect, their interset and the fact that they would have an obligation as to recover any public fund owed, would, and that process would include establishing the legal owner who would be responsible for the debt.

 

In a nutshell, who ever is responsible for paying the debt, ( MR Smith ) will and i will make sure, have to show and convince, with evidence beyond any proof that he is not that person who has now been ordered to pay public funding back, as a direct result of his discriminating actions.

 

Your crusade against Mr Smith (no matter how understandable) might be clouding your ability to recover the judgment sum.

The court isn't necessarily interested in your desire to pin down Mr Smith, it will / has focused on matters of law.

 

When are you planning on discussing who has the assets / how you intend to recover the judgement sum?

[andydub64]

 

What the DWP write isn't the same as having a judgement in that persons name.

 

Who are the parties named on the judgement?

Do any of them coincide with the assets?

No matter what letters from the DWP you bring forward, these are what matters unless you get the judgement amended.

 

You may feel Mr Smith is the debtor, but what are you going to do if;

a) he is the only party with the assets, yet

b) isn't named on the judgement ....

(& please don't say 'judicial review', just because you heard the phrase once.....)

 

What are you going to do if he hasn't got assets? You still haven't said which party has the assets.

 

A judgement with no plan to enforce it is a Pyrrhic victory.

 

We do have in place a plan to enforce the judgement, but cannot act or secure the application until the fourteen days giving for payment has expired.

 

In such event' we have got the right to ask for a judicial review, if the Tribunal have ignored previous orders and subsequent applications that if followed, would have established what is trying to be established now.

 

The respondent at the Preliminary hearing imposed five separate orders for the respondent to comply with, four of those orders were completely abused, that alone would be grounds to question why? a judical review would give the answers, there is no logics in having rules if those rules are not adopted, Mr Smith and his solicitor are most certainly, although may might feel, immune from abiding those rules, they're not.

[Ganymede]

If Mr Smith wants to adopted the same stance, as has been evident since the case was won, by shifting any liabilities onto someone else ( his ill wife ) he will not have any difficulty in proving this, to those who are employed by the government as to recover from the legal owner, and i would assume, not some made up legal owner once it was established that he was guilty.

 

I am currently in correspondence with the DWP, who have now been provided with a chronology of events which would include any misrepresentations.

 

Did the CRU ask for this?

[Ganymede]

We do have in place a plan to enforce the judgement, but cannot act or secure the application until the fourteen days giving for payment has expired.

 

In such event' we have got the right to ask for a judicial review, if the Tribunal have ignored previous orders and subsequent applications that if followed, would have established what is trying to be established now.

 

The respondent at the Preliminary hearing imposed five separate orders for the respondent to comply with, four of those orders were completely abused, that alone would be grounds to question why? a judical review would give the answers, there is no logics in having rules if those rules are not adopted, Mr Smith and his solicitor are most certainly, although may might feel, immune from abiding those rules, they're not.

 

Who has recommended you apply for Judicial Review?

[BazzaS]

We do have in place a plan to enforce the judgement, but cannot act or secure the application until the fourteen days giving for payment has expired.

 

In such event' we have got the right to ask for a judicial review, if the Tribunal have ignored previous orders and subsequent applications that if followed, would have established what is trying to be established now.

 

The respondent at the Preliminary hearing imposed five separate orders for the respondent to comply with, four of those orders were completely abused, that alone would be grounds to question why? a judical review would give the answers, there is no logics in having rules if those rules are not adopted, Mr Smith and his solicitor are most certainly, although may might feel, immune from abiding those rules, they're not.

 

I've mentioned judicial review before, so will be brief.

£20,000 to spare?

 

Judicial review grounds? You seem to be stressing "an irrational approach", so:

Wednesbury and CCSU cases : The court has wide latitude, to achieve the overriding objective, so how will you show it reached a conclusion "outrageous in its defiance of logic" (CCSU) or a "so unreasonable... That no reasonable authority could have come to it" (Wednesbury)

[andydub64]

No, the CRU are not interested as long as they get paid back.

 

They only state Mr Smith and the Company on their letters because that is what they were told at the start of the Court claim.

 

The CRU do not investigate any further than that.

 

But if there is a misrepresentation on who should be liable to pay the debt, and if the debt is not honoured, the CRU would have to investigate, as this would be in the interest of the public, as it is the public who are are being fleeced, if any liability is being waived based on what the respondents are now alleging.

[BazzaS]

Who has recommended you apply for Judicial Review?

 

 

"ask for a judicial review as to how the respondent, their legal representatives and for that matter the judge, allowed a number of orders and directions to be completely ignored"

I'm not sure you understand the role of judicial review. You understand that you'll have to apply to the Administrative Division of the High Court, and should expect to need in the region of £20k funding : and that would be a minimum to start with.........

 

 

(& please don't say 'judicial review', just because you heard the phrase once.....)

 

So, "who has recommended JR"?

Not me!

[andydub64]

I've mentioned judicial review before, so will be brief.

£20,000 to spare?

 

Judicial review grounds? You seem to be stressing "an irrational approach", so:

Wednesbury and CCSU cases : The court has wide latitude, so how will you show it reached a conclusion "outrageous in its defiance of logic" (CCSU) or a "so unreasonable... That no reasonable authority could have come to it" (Wednesbury)

 

Grounds, failing to follow 4 of the 5 orders , which would include the correct legal entity of the respondent, pursuant to the Preliminary Hearing when the Employment judge raised this as being an issue, which the respondent legal representative could not give answer when asked.

 

Rule 34 order again trying to establish the legal entity of the respondent because previous directions had been ignored, company removed Mr Smith added, judgement order, states the complete opposite, rule 34 thereafter abused.

 

Application to have unless order in respect of the respondent providing a full trial bundle which would include such evidence, that would include any witness statements that would prove the respondent was unlawful in dismissing my daughter, order application ignored by same judge, who superseded that application bt threatening to strike out respondents claim, only to allow the trial to go ahead next day, on the pleadings giving by the respondents legal representative that i was not qualified or knew the correct procedure, which was denied and as evidently proven by the fact that all procedures and orders correctly followed.

 

Judgement giving and signed by the same judge states that it was established that Mrs Smith was the legal entity of the respondent, 185 pages of trial bundle, no mention of Mrs Smith, more to the point was never established, just alleged.

 

All of the issues and in particular, the legal entity of the respondent were ignored despite orders, applications and a process which was completely ignored by the respondent, his representative and the judge, which brings us to this point, questions on who the legal entity really is, would not now be an issue but for the above.

[BazzaS]

Grounds, failing to follow 4 of the 5 orders , which would include the correct legal entity of the respondent, pursuant to the Preliminary Hearing when the Employment judge raised this as being an issue, which the respondent legal representative could not give answer when asked.

 

Rule 34 order again trying to establish the legal entity of the respondent because previous directions had been ignored, company removed Mr Smith added, judgement order, states the complete opposite, rule 34 thereafter abused.

 

Application to have unless order in respect of the respondent providing a full trial bundle which would include such evidence, that would include any witness statements that would prove the respondent was unlawful in dismissing my daughter, order application ignored by same judge, who superseded that application bt threatening to strike out respondents claim, only to allow the trial to go ahead next day, on the pleadings giving by the respondents legal representative that i was not qualified or knew the correct procedure, which was denied and as evidently proven by the fact that all procedures and orders correctly followed.

 

Judgement giving and signed by the same judge states that it was established that Mrs Smith was the legal entity of the respondent, 185 pages of trial bundle, no mention of Mrs Smith, more to the point was never established, just alleged.

 

All of the issues and in particular, the legal entity of the respondent were ignored despite orders, applications and a process which was completely ignored by the respondent, his representative and the judge, which brings us to this point, questions on who the legal entity really is, would not now be an issue but for the above.

 

But you have a judgement in your party's favour.

You want to claim that is irrational?!?

 

JR is the wrong route to take, on many levels.

 

As for "no mention of Mrs Smith, more to the point was never established, just alleged" ; judges make judicial decisions based on the information in front of them, all day, every day.

There were cheques signed by Mrs Smith??

Not irrational!

[andydub64]

Whilst i appreciate Judges make judicial decisions based on the information in front of them, there is a process that needs to be followed which would allow the other party to view the information as to insure the facts that are alleged are correct, and in their opinion.

 

Giving that most of the other orders were breached, disclosing a piece of paper on the judges lap one minute before the trial citing the legal entity of the respondent, would be par on course with all the other rules that the respondent re-created during the whole procedure process.

 

Because Mrs Smith signs a cheque, it does not make her the legal entity responsible for the debt, i would have assumed.

[BazzaS]

Whilst i appreciate Judges make judicial decisions based on the information in front of them, there is a process that needs to be followed which would allow the other party to view the information as to insure the facts that are alleged are correct, and in their opinion.

 

Giving that most of the other orders were breached, disclosing a piece of paper on the judges lap one minute before the trial citing the legal entity of the respondent, would be par on course with all the other rules that the respondent re-created during the whole procedure process.

 

Because Mrs Smith signs a cheque, it does not make her the legal entity responsible for the debt, i would have assumed.

 

Which STILL doesn't make a judicial review appropriate.

 

I can't advise further without the other info I've (repeatedly) asked for.

Emmzzi has already bowed out,too, on similar grounds.