Employment Tribunal Hearing grounds of discrimination ( pregnancy )

[BazzaS]

You may disagree but the judge has decided who is vicariously liable. It doesnt matter who the front man is or who said what, basically the chances of appealing this decision are slim as the judge will have had to misdirect themslf at some point and matters of fact arent going to be reconsidered so if they are wrong on that point it wont get changed unless the reason for going down the wrong path are those facts alone.

I wouldnt be taking it any further as you have a result than can be enforced and may lose that.

 

+1

[andydub64]

I have a lot of sympathy. Andy's daughter has clearly been through a very difficult situation. In circumstances such as she has dealt with, where there are a number of closely related individuals involved at a small employer who has not issued a employment contact, it can sometimes be difficult to identify the employer.

 

To be honest, I think a lot of this stuff is now water under the bridge. There is a judgment in play, so arguments around reasons why person X is responsible rather than person Y are no longer relevant - the case is over. The mechanism for contesting the judgment would be to issue an appeal.

 

Good afternoon Steampowered,

 

Mr Smith has now offered under a without prejudice basis 9k, some 8k short of what he has been ordered to pay and without the costs.

 

Mr Smith, bless him, is saying that if he has to pay the full amount, the company will go bankrupt, yea of course it will.

 

Maybe Mr Smith should have thought about the costs as to defend what was blatantly clear and represented himself " as to save costs" rather than foot the bill in having to pay some two bob solicitor who failed quite miserably by trying to be clever and ignore orders and conceal evidence by ignoring the orders in the hope of winning the case.

 

We are now therefore in the process of now further proven what a compulsive liar Mr Smith really is, as three subsequent orders/applications N316/a , N349 and N379, that will not only establish he has the means to pay, but also will be enforced once that fact is proven, have now been provided.

 

I have also giving Mr Smith the opportunity to pay back the two weeks wages that he unlawfully took from my daughter's wages when he unlawfully sacked her as a means of paying back a loan that should have been repaid over a twelve month period.

 

Thats right, not content with sacking my pregnant daughter, any money that was owed for the work she had completed, Mr Smith made quite sure that any money owed would be unlawfully clawed back.

 

Mr Smith therefore needs to prepare himself for another lengthy litigation that will burn a hole in his pocket.

[andydub64]

+1

 

+ 2, Judicial review

 

+ 3 HRA (Section 6)

 

+ 4 Baz is showing all hallmarks of a man possessed in making excuses for a low-life employer and that all judges act and behave as to serve justice, there goes that flying pig again.

[BazzaS]

+ 2, Judicial review

 

+ 3 HRA (Section 6)

 

+ 4 Baz is showing all hallmarks of a man possessed in making excuses for a low-life employer and that all judges act and behave as to serve justice, there goes that flying pig again.

 

 

It is very easy to cry "humin rights, innit" : it is still the case that judicial review is more lengthy, costly (£20k+) and inappropriate when an appeal is the better course of action.

Indeed, having an appropriate appeal route and NOT utilising it instead of launching a JR can be fatal to JR application at its first hurdle.

 

I've never made any excuse for the business or Mr Smith and I challenge you to show that I'm mistaken in stating so : you can't, can you?

That is why you never answer (to you, inconvenient) questions (regardless of if they are asked by me, GM or SP.......)

 

I pity your daughter : not only did she have to go through the unfairness, but she runs the risk of recovering less due to your blinkered attitude.

 

BTW: who have you named for each of those 3 applications?

I bet none of them have Mr Smith(solely) named .....

[andydub64]

Human Rights and the rights to a fair and proper hearing is not as you have assumed, a platform to cry, they are there to protect the Human Rights of people which incidentally would include my daughter.

 

You are now backtracking on your plight and determination to prove Mr Smith is not liable, quite the reverse, further you have not giving any logical reason why that could even remotely by the case, you have merely assumed and now you are betting on whether Mr Smith has been named on the applications x3, there would be no reason not to name Mr Smith for the reasons and the answers that you keep telling yourself that, evidently I have giving more than enough as to show your assumptions are merely that, if buts and maybes.

 

As for feeling sorry for my daughter, again it just shows how backward your thinking is, and just for the sake of arguing.

 

Like or not nasty men who treat woman with complete contempt, are sometimes outed and sometimes you do not need to be legally qualified to always prove that, are you a solicitor BazxaS?

[BazzaS]

Human Rights and the rights to a fair and proper hearing is not as you have assumed, a platform to cry, they are there to protect the Human Rights of people which incidentally would include my daughter.

 

You are now backtracking on your plight and determination to prove Mr Smith is not liable, quite the reverse, further you have not giving any logical reason why that could even remotely by the case, you have merely assumed and now you are betting on whether Mr Smith has been named on the applications x3, there would be no reason not to name Mr Smith for the reasons and the answers that you keep telling yourself that, evidently I have giving more than enough as to show your assumptions are merely that, if buts and maybes.

 

More confused verbiage. I've never said Mr Smith wasn't the cause of your daughter's woes : just focused on who the tribunal has held is financially liable.

 

Stop obfuscating : 2 simple queries you could (instead) have answered:

1) Show me where I was making excuses for Mr Smith (rather than highlighting there is a difference between who was at fault, and who the tribunal holds financially responsible to provide compensation)

2) for the 3 applications you have made, I bet Mr Smith was not (SOLELY) named on each for all 3.

But you can't truthfully answer those can you? Not without showing yourself either to be wrong or erring at law...... which is why you have again avoided them.

 

As for feeling sorry for my daughter, again it just shows how backward your thinking is, and just for the sake of arguing.

 

Like or not nasty men who treat woman with complete contempt, are sometimes outed and sometimes you do not need to be legally qualified to always prove that, are you a solicitor BazxaS?

 

OK, where have I treated women with contempt?

I can't tell if that is what you are now hinting at, as you express yourself so poorly.

You can accuse and/or hint at accusations, but you never back up those accusations (like the accusation I was making excuses for Mr Smith).......

 

Where have I said I am a solicitor? Or are you planning on:

a) If I say I am a solicitor, you say "see, he is in bed with the corrupt judges", and

b) If I say I am not a solicitor, you say "see, you aren't a solicitor, so what do you know, why should we listen to you"!.

Its on a par with asking "Yes or No, have you stopped beating your wife yet"...... a loaded question.

 

If I've never claimed to be a solicitor, what does it matter?

I suspect most of the CAG'ers aren't solicitors.....

[Emmzzi]

I suspct I may be the only person on this thread who has actually read all the UN human rights .. step away from the red herring

[BazzaS]

I suspct I may be the only person on this thread who has actually read all the UN human rights .. step away from the red herring

 

I haven't read the UN rights.

The UK's Human Rights Act 1998 aims to incorporates into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights (how close are these to the UN provisions?)

 

In adversarial litigation one party has a finding against it, and one in its favour. Thus there is always at least one party that might want to cry "foul".

Here it is a party with the judgment in their favour ......

 

I agree JR is a complete red herring for the OP:

A) not getting "your way" / all of what you want doesn't automatically mean there was unfairness,

B) Judicial review isn't the way forward for the reasons I've stated already

C) not having appealed, a judicial review is a non-starter anyhow!

[andydub64]

* note * the more ....... BarzzaS makes, the more ..... annoyed he is getting, him and Enmzii are ganging up on me now.

 

He keeps making it up as the thread progresses, and his sidekick likes to think it knows it all, but in reality, ??

 

Both CLASSIC account holders, so they must be right, everyone else is wrong, oh to be important, and oh to be so foolish.

 

Keep banging that keyboard Baz, because at the moment the jury is still out as to who is the bigger plank, you or Mr Smith, its close x

[BazzaS]

* note * the more ....... BarzzaS makes, the more ..... annoyed he is getting, him and Enmzii are ganging up on me now.

 

He keeps making it up as the thread progresses, and his sidekick likes to think it knows it all, but in reality, ??

 

Both CLASSIC account holders, so they must be right, everyone else is wrong, oh to be important, and oh to be so foolish.

 

Keep banging that keyboard Baz, because at the moment the jury is still out as to who is the bigger plank, you or Mr Smith, its close x

 

If me having a "classic" account on CAG is the most you can criticise me on at the present, I have little to be concerned about.

(To explain : I have a classic account as I've never tried to change / upgrade my account, so it is the type CAG has given me by default).

 

Thing is, with your lack of answering questions, and rambling, interspersed with random comments, led me to note (back on the 11th March): "..... 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"."

 

You've now said something potentially of import, but it has got muffled in all the "noise" of your false accusations and focusing on how many "......"'s I use.

I can't asses its relevance due to the lack of information (including the lack of replies to the questions raised), so (and I say it only for your daughters sake!):

 

It is indeed possible you are correct & Mr Smith is now being sly .... pay careful attention to the law, correct process, thresholds, dates, timings, and the consequences of the application(s) you have made.

 

You may wish to seek formal legal advice.

[AndyOrch]

In view that this thread appears to be going round in circles and would appear to have run its course....the thread is now closed.

 

Regards

Andy

[andydub64]

Letter setting out grounds for review have been duly listed and put in chronological order, the latest being that the Judge has further abused his obligation as to assess and award costs, if such costs are recoverable from the respondent.

 

This as it would appear would further demonstrate that my daughters legal entitlement equality of arms have evidently been denied, on numerous occasions which would include failing to act/comply on the order's/direction's giving by a previous Employment Judge of the same status who has been notified accordingly.

 

To conclude, it is very hard to establish a woman has been treated predominately of the motives that the employer is discriminating because that woman is carrying a life, to aid or encourage such practice by abusing any authority is in my own opinion far worse than any employer showing complete contempt to the basics and would encourage others to mistreat

[BazzaS]

Letter setting out grounds for review have been duly listed and put in chronological order, the latest being that the Judge has further abused his obligation as to assess and award costs, if such costs are recoverable from the respondent.

 

This as it would appear would further demonstrate that my daughters legal entitlement equality of arms have evidently been denied, on numerous occasions which would include failing to act/comply on the order's/direction's giving by a previous Employment Judge of the same status who has been notified accordingly.

 

To conclude, it is very hard to establish a woman has been treated predominately of the motives that the employer is discriminating because that woman is carrying a life, to aid or encourage such practice by abusing any authority is in my own opinion far worse than any employer showing complete contempt to the basics and would encourage others to mistreat

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?459367-Employment-Tribunal-Hearing&p=4875395#post4875395

 

Is the OP trying to re-open that closed thread?

 

On that thread, GM asked (9th March): "Who has recommended you apply for Judicial Review?"

 

I suspect they are asking this as Judicial review (JR) remains inappropriate. If you haven't appealed first, they are bound to reject any JR application.

Please note : that "bound to reject" occurs independently of any issues of fact (like who is at fault) : they won't consider any issues relating to Mr Smith : they'll never reach considering them as the "has this been heard at appeal" hurdle gets considered first.

 

 

I agree JR is a complete red herring for the OP:

A) not getting "your way" / all of what you want doesn't automatically mean there was unfairness,

B) Judicial review isn't the way forward for the reasons I've stated already

C) not having appealed, a judicial review is a non-starter anyhow!

[andydub64]

The matter has now been referred to the Employment Regional Judge, on the recommendation of the administration department of the ET, which is another positive step in the right direction.

 

*note to BazzaS, Kindly refrain from high-jacking my threads and again making assumptions that i am re-opening "that closed thread", this has to do with the way the case was considered and dealt with, and not as a result of anyone acting in a discriminating manner, nor hiding behind someone else when they have been outed, because they think they are clever, not on this occasion, anyway.

 

For anyone who wants to give a constructive viewpoint on this subject, your advice would be appreciated.

 

Hopefully i will now show that women not only have to put up with discriminating employers but also how those discriminating employers are protected, wrapped in cotton wool and giving a pat on the back as a means of deterring other **** pond-life from acting likewise.

 

Some see this as normal practice, i cannot think of anything so morally wrong, just my humble opinion.

[BazzaS]

The matter has now been referred to the Employment Regional Judge, on the recommendation of the administration department of the ET, which is another positive step in the right direction.

 

*note to BazzaS, Kindly refrain from high-jacking my threads and again making assumptions that i am re-opening "that closed thread", this has to do with the way the case was considered and dealt with, and not as a result of anyone acting in a discriminating manner, nor hiding behind someone else when they have been outed, because they think they are clever, not on this occasion, anyway.

 

For anyone who wants to give a constructive viewpoint on this subject, your advice would be appreciated.

 

Hopefully i will now show that women not only have to put up with discriminating employers but also how those discriminating employers are protected, wrapped in cotton wool and giving a pat on the back as a means of deterring other **** pond-life from acting likewise.

 

Some see this as normal practice, i cannot think of anything so morally wrong, just my humble opinion.

 

The thread is entitled "judicial review protocol"

a) you discussed judicial review in the previous (closed thread)

b) Judicial Review gets dealt with in the Administrative Division of the High Court.

So, my contribution isn't a thread hijack.

 

However now that you have revealed "The matter has now been referred to the Employment Regional Judge, on the recommendation of the administration department of the ET" : did you in fact appeal, rather than apply for judicial review?

(The two are distinctly different procedures)

[andydub64]

I discussed a number of matters on the previous thread, the thread was not closed because of any judicial review issue, the thread was closed because it was going round in circles, agreed, i would rather deal in facts, rather than if, buts or even maybes.

 

If you stick to facts rather than assume, chances are you will prove the point, and giving the kind comments on the closed thread, i am satisfied.

 

Why do you assume or for that matter believe that there are only two distinctly different procedures for a more senior judge to " intervene " and for the record, i have "merely" highlighted the grounds for a JR, but the Regional judge has not acted on any procedure that has been breached by my daughter, now even you can work this one out.

[BazzaS]

Why do you assume or for that matter believe that there are only two distinctly different procedures for a more senior judge to " intervene " and for the record, i have "merely" highlighted the grounds for a JR, but the Regional judge has not acted on any procedure that has been breached by my daughter, now even you can work this one out.

 

So why start a thread entitled "judicial review protocol"? (With you ignoring that you can't apply for JR until you have appealed and that appeal had been ruled on).

What do you want from this thread??

 

As for "the Regional judge has not acted on any procedure that has been breached by my daughter," : say what?

Where has there been any suggestion of a breach by your daughter?

 

Have you appealed or what?

If you have appealed : where does that leave the 3 applications you claim to have made?

[Emmzzi]

Hi Andy,

 

I am unclear what advice you are looking for. Could you clarify? It will help the board members be able to help you more effectively.

 

Em

[Ganymede]

Letter setting out grounds for review have been duly listed and put in chronological order, the latest being that the Judge has further abused his obligation as to assess and award costs, if such costs are recoverable from the respondent.

 

This as it would appear would further demonstrate that my daughters legal entitlement equality of arms have evidently been denied, on numerous occasions which would include failing to act/comply on the order's/direction's giving by a previous Employment Judge of the same status who has been notified accordingly.

 

Judges have a very wide discretion and case management powers. Be careful with any appeal or Judicial Review.

[ericsbrother]

He is not asking a question but making a statement to say that he is following this path and ya boo sucks to those who dont agree with his previous output.

 

The EAT will want to see evidence that the original decision was flawed on matters of interpretation of case law, application of that case law (whether tribunal had reached a perverse decision) or whether the tribunal misdirected itself over matters of law or matters of fact ( not the facts themselves, just where they lead the tribunal having improperly considering them).

 

Andy, as long as you can show one otr more of the above then you have a good chance of overturning a bad decision. I am not sure that they can order things to be considered again due to an "inequality of arms" as that is normally solved by hiring a lawyer rather than going to court yourself. If, however you mean that the tribunal declared the other side were in contempt by their actions and ultimately they did nothing about this then you may well have a case.

 

However, if your daughter is not eligible for legal aid or you dont have deep pockets be very careful about what you wish for as your opening line here about costs isnt going to get you anywhere.

Edited March 17, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[andydub64]

The Respondent in my daughters claim has made a without prejudice offer to settle a judgement debt, part payment 75% upfront, the remaining 25% he has asked to pay by instalments.

 

Any advice on how agreement should be worded and in particular to the any agreed instalment as to protect in the event of non payment would be appreciated.

[martin2006]

Whereabouts in the claim process are you? Im thinking it could be agreed during mediation

 

Im not 100% on court procedure, a consent order or tomlin order may be possible

 

Andy/dx are the ones in the know here

Edited March 17, 2016 by martin2006

[honeybee13]

Whereabouts in the claim process are you? Im thinking it could be agreed during mediation

 

From looking at the previous thread but one, Martin, I see that ACAS have been involved. If judgement has been obtained though, which is my understanding, then their role may have finished.

 

HB

[andydub64]

Whereabouts in the claim process are you? Im thinking it could be agreed during mediation

 

Im not 100% on court procedure, a consent order or tomlin order may be possible

 

Andy/dx are the ones in the know here

 

Judgement has been secured, the debt is outstanding, pursuant to the judgement.

 

ACAS can still be involved, under enforcement procedure, if need be.

 

The judgement debtor wants to reschedule the the judgement award, amount owned, its the wording on any agreement, by paying by instalments that i need to know about, in the event that the agreement schedule is not met.

 

In a nutshell, we need an agreement that could be enforced if the payment agreement is breached.

[martin2006]

Ahh i see HB i didnt realise this was attached with another thread