Jump to content
James555

Employment Tribunal-Co changed ownership

Recommended Posts

My tribunal is being held over four days at the beginning of July. I have just discovered that the owners (who were franchisees) have sold their company to the franchise.

They were bringing five witnesses including both of the original directors.

 

My questions are, can I expect to see the original directors turn up as witnesses? I know there's no requirement on their part to do so and any response you give will just be opinion.

 

My other question is I have had little contact with Peninsula about this case. We've exchanged bundles and witness statements. They went through their usual request to strike out theatre, unsuccessfully. Are there any questions I should consider asking them?

 

 

Thanks in advance

 

Czinczar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody could possibly answer these questions. We know nothing about the terms of the sale, the intentions of witnesses, or the role of Peninsula. Or the case! Any answer you got is likely to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thanks, Sangie.

 

I knew the first question was just a matter of opinion. I was hoping to gain a consensus. Its not important.

 

I presumed that one would realise that Peninsula are acting on behalf of the Respondents. The particulars of the case wouldn't have a bearing on a generalised question. I'm not looking for right or wrong answers.

 

I'm looking for examples of possible outcomes, thus allowing me to prepare for these contingencies.

 

As to my second question, whilst it is somewhat philosophical in nature, bears strongly on the Respondent's ability to respond.

 

I did feel that if the previous directors felt the sale meant they were disinclined to bear testimony, that it changed the shape of the case.

 

For example, whilst the Judge can read their written statement, they will not be responding to any evidence I might produce. This will likely damage the Respondent's case.

 

Somebody might have experience of this and give me a feel as to how a judge is likely to respond. Will the Judge, for example, rule out any evidence relating to the previous directors?

 

Should I contact Peninsula with a view to a settlement offer? etc

 

Equally, it may be that the new owners have a disclaimer in the sale agreement requiring the previous directors to act.

 

I was hoping others here might have some experience or knowledge about these things and could direct my thoughts as to further preparation. I suspect writing to Peninsula to enquire about the status of the directors as witnesses would be prudent.

 

Thanks again for your time, Sangie

 

James555

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One did, in fact, recognise that Peninsula would be acting on behalf of the employer in some capacity. But given that they also have a range of employer services it could have been in several different forms, including, potentially as a co-respondent. I presumed one would know that...

 

You are not Peninsula's client - they are hardly likely to respond to you unless instructed to do so by someone who is their client.

 

One has quite a lot of experience or knowledge about these things, but doesn't possess a crystal ball, and is therefore not able to divine the intentions of a group of people one knows nothing about, in a case one knows nothing about, in relation to a sale one doesn't know the terms of!

 

It is equally possible that you no longer have a case because you have no respondent. But that, like all your suggestions, is a guess based on absolutely no information!

 

But Peninsula won't be offering you a settlement unless their clients instruct them to. They are only acting as legal advisors, and don't initiate any action themselves.

 

That is, of course, assuming they have anything at all to do with it any more - it is also possible that their clients are now former clients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sangie

 

Thank you. I don't believe I need any further advice from you. I would quickly point out that the Respondents are the Company and not the Directors.

 

If I can figure out a way to close this thread, I shall.

 

James555

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then clearly you know everything you need to know.

 

As your original posting makes no mention of what this is all about then people will need to ask questions and that includes ones about in what capacity someone is acting.

 

If you think writing to Peninsula then you do that, I would write to the trinbunal seeking an order for the company to make these things clear as you would want to cross examine them and their evidence or have it chucked out if they dont appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, thanks, Sangie.

 

I knew the first question was just a matter of opinion. I was hoping to gain a consensus. Its not important.

 

I presumed that one would realise that Peninsula are acting on behalf of the Respondents. The particulars of the case wouldn't have a bearing on a generalised question. I'm not looking for right or wrong answers. I'm looking for examples of possible outcomes, thus allowing me to prepare for these contingencies.

 

As to my second question, whilst it is somewhat philosophical in nature, bears strongly on the Respondent's ability to respond.

 

I did feel that if the previous directors felt the sale meant they were disinclined to bear testimony, that it changed the shape of the case. For example, whilst the Judge can read their written statement, they will not be responding to any evidence I might produce. This will likely damage the Respondent's case. Somebody might have experience of this and give me a feel as to how a judge is likely to respond. Will the Judge, for example, rule out any evidence relating to the previous directors? Should I contact Peninsula with a view to a settlement offer? etc

 

Equally, it may be that the new owners have a disclaimer in the sale agreement requiring the previous directors to act. I was hoping others here might have some experience or knowledge about these things and could direct my thoughts as to further preparation. I suspect writing to Peninsula to enquire about the status of the directors as witnesses would be prudent.

 

Thanks again for your time, Sangie

 

James555

 

 

I would clearly expect those that have given witness statements to turn up on that day

 

However, some people, for whatever reasons, don’t turn up (eg sickness or bereavement)

 

That witness statement is either not read or light weight is given to them

 

My bet is that it wouldn’t be read.

 

I would suggest you prepare to cross examine everyone that has given a witness statement

 

I believe you should have all your questions ready by now (at least a month in advance)

 

Regarding settlement agreement, my suggestion is that you make an offer

 

Make a high offer then note that it is open to negotiation

 

My reason;

 

The other side hasn’t made any offer (not to my knowledge), so I deduce that their case is strong

 

Making an offer would kind of protect you against any cost in case they win

 

Cost are usually NOT made in an Employment Tribunal but it wouldn’t hurt if you take a little insurance

 

Please note, I have not sight of your case so can’t say if it has merit or not

 

In any event, deciding on the merit of a case is the job of a legal adviser, I’m not

 

Finally, you are free to write to Peninsula and ask them about the status and/or availability of their witnesses

 

They should respond

 

If they don’t, then you can write to the Tribunal and ask for an Order

 

You shouldn't rush to the Tribunal at the slightest opportunity

 

Make sure you point out that you had earlier written to the other side and they refused.

 

Also, point out that you consider their behaviour unreasonable conduct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Dondada. A thoughtful essay. Much appreciated.

 

I have wondered about a settlement agreement.

My concern was that they had not produced a good argument in their ET3, their bundle or their witness statements to show that my primary case was poor.

 

This read to me that their defence was not going to be evidence based and was not going to rely on the law.

 

My case rests on a point of law.

Generally, as I understand it, this means they do a lot of pounding on tables (as they say). This makes me suspect that their case isn't very strong.

 

I believe they're going to rely on claiming that they were wonderful and I was not which unfortunately (even if it were true) completely misses the point of the case. I appreciate you're not a legal advisor but you offered me some good cold advice. Thanks.

 

I know it weakens their case if the directors who've resigned don't turn up. I'm not relying on that. I'll also ask about the availability of their witnesses. The new Directors are part of a much larger company and they may take a different view to the previous directors.

 

I have prepared questions for all of the witnesses already.

I've yet to package them. I've also prepared for the questions I think I will be asked as their solicitor tells me that he expects to have me on the stand for three hours.

 

As regards putting my case, I have been using most of my witness statement (which has a significant number of points to use).

 

I've asked a friend who I consider to be intelligent and commercially knowledgeable to review it and I'm prepared for something of a re-write.

 

It is about 20,000 words packed down as I don't want to be verbose or drift off topic. I'm mindful that I will be reading it out and this offers opportunities too.

 

I like your idea of making an offer.

I had always presumed that the first to make an offer is showing a weakness. Nevertheless, I think I'll do as you say.

 

I don't believe I'm hurt if they reject it.

 

Thanks again, Dondada

Kind regards

James555

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in order to answer your question, I would have to digress a little

 

In NLP, we have the VAK representational system

 

V - visual

 

A - auditory

 

K - kinesthetics

 

A person with a visual system would say "I can't see your point"

 

A person with kinesthetics system would say "I can't get a grip of what you are saying"

 

To build a Rapport with a person and in turn influence them you have to know their system and "mirror" them

 

Judges and Lawyers have the same training hence speak the same "language".

 

In order words, they mirror themselves

 

They have a Rapport already

 

Due to that Rapport, a Judge would have a natural bias towards the Lawyer

 

It is not illegal but crucially it is unconscious and just a human failings

 

You have to work twice as hard to overcome that bias

 

I denote confidence on your part due to the weakness of the other side's case

 

Just be careful it doesn't become overconfidence

 

On a positive note, I believe you can overcome that Rapport because Judges love justice and tend to favour the right person

 

Just watch out for that overconfidence

Edited by dx100uk
Quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dondada

 

Thank you for that.

My apologies for not responding sooner but I've finally got a full time job and am trying to balance work with the case load.

 

I made them an offer which they rejected out of hand.

On a positive note, they described the Respondent as extremely confident.

That made me laugh because we've been in front of the Judge before and if they had a killer defence, it would have been a great time to present it.

 

Equally, they could have told me.

I would definitely put a halt to proceedings if they could show any significant strength.

 

Their response was just mind games and poorly done at that.

He's tried to get my goat on several occasions but mostly I found it risible.

 

Truthfully, I'm either very confident or very despondent when it comes to the case.

At work I can be considered a bit phlegmatic but I enjoy giving talks, so as a person, I expect to come across as confident.

My biggest weakness is getting chatty (as you might tell from the length of my posts).

 

I was aware of what you're calling rapport between a lawyer and judge.

I'm hoping to show common sense and that their Lawyer is simply parroting the Respondent's position and attempting to translate that into a case.

 

In particular from their side of the bundle and their witness statements, I think I can show that these have no bearing on the case and is simply deflection i.e. no matter the level of their Lawyer's professionalism, it's the client at fault.

 

That last is my point two of the three legs a statutory dismissal case rest on: that I chose to leave at an appropriate moment based on their prior actions and their recent decisions.

 

So, you're right, I am pretty confident.

I have two main tactics that I expect to play a lot; shutting up and pointing out strawmen. My feeling is though, that it's like a football match; it's all on the day!

 

Thanks again for your kind words and advice.

 

James555

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish you all the best

 

Feel free to ask any question

 

Please kindly provide updates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

 

I just saw this and thought it could be helpful to you.

 

Note the settings is in the US and it is in a criminal case

 

However, I believe this is what you should be doing now ie learning how to cross-examine the witnesses

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-destroy-a-witness-on-the-stand-2013-7?IR=T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

 

 

I just saw this and thought it could be helpful to you.

 

Note the settings is in the US and it is in a criminal case

 

However, I believe this is what you should be doing now ie learning how to cross-examine the witnesses

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-destroy-a-witness-on-the-stand-2013-7?IR=T

 

Blimey. I thought it was about showing the tribunal that the other side had behaved unlawfully.

If (as a lay person) you have to use tactics to belittle or discomfort witnesses:

A) the tribunal staff will likely notice

B) they may intervene to stop you badgering witnesses

C) they might ask themselves if you have any evidence to support yourself and why you aren’t focusing on that instead.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand this The OP asked for help Nobody was able to assist

He even wanted to close the Thread

 

 

I was able to offer some tips and advice Which he appreciated

 

 

Rather than offering your own tips and advice, mine is being criticized

Please offer your own suggestions and the OP will choose which he prefers

 

 

I wonder what the Site Team will say about this unfair attack

Edited by honeybee13
Paras

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't understand this

The OP asked for help

Nobody was able to assist

He even wanted to close the Thread

I was able to offer some tips and advice

Which he appreciated

Rather than offering your own tips and advice, mine is being criticized

Please offer your own suggestions and the OP will choose which he prefers

I wonder what the Site Team will say about this unfair attack

 

 

Report my post, then, and let the site team decide.

I suspect (with regard to an “unfair attack”) that they’ll say

a) it isn’t unfair, and

b) it isn’t an attack.

 

As an observation (and not an attack!), you seem to consistently:

A) advise people to go to an ET, regardless of if it seems they have a good case

B) if someone says they don’t have a good case for an ET, say

i) that they shouldn’t be giving legal advice

ii) that they don’t have all the facts and thus can’t comment.

 

Yet,

a) the same applies to you regarding Bi and Bii

b) you always then say “I’m just giving options and the OP can decide” ; which is true, but equally true for those who are disagreeing with you!

 

Who am I likely to find more persuasive?

Someone who always seems to say “take it to an ET” whatever the scenario,

Or someone who sometimes says “take it to an ET”, other times “you won’t have a chance at an ET”, and who seems to be more familiar with the ET process, which leads me to:

 

You still haven’t answered just how many ET claims you have been involved with / how many ET’s you’ve actually been to; which you’ve now been asked a number of times without an answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So clearly, the issue you have is with me.

It isn't because what I said was wrong just that you have a problem with me.

I have a strong belief in the legal principle of ubi jus ibi remedium

I'm very proud of that

I would just expect that you engage with me on an intellectual level

This pettiness of Ad hominem fallacious argument is getting us no where

Please provide solid arguments and evidence to disprove my points

That is a higher level of discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So clearly, the issue you have is with me.

It isn't because what I said was wrong just that you have a problem with me.

I have a strong belief in the legal principle of ubi jus ibi remedium

I'm very proud of that

I would just expect that you engage with me on an intellectual level

This pettiness of Ad hominem fallacious argument is getting us no where

Please provide solid arguments and evidence to disprove my points

That is a higher level of discussion

 

No, my “issue” isn’t with you, but your behaviour, and your ‘advice’.

As I said before, recommending basing a case on haranguing / belittling the other side’s witnesses rather than a strong case is poor advice.

 

Only ever recommending “take it to an ET” regardless of if the case appears weak or strong suggests a skewed starting point.

 

Avoiding answering just how much experience you have in real life, rather than ‘armchair warrior’ : doesn’t build confidence on a background of the above described behaviour.

 

That isn’t a merely academic or ad hominem discussion, but based on your previous posts, and the questions you seem to be ‘dodging’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Only ever recommending “take it to an ET” regardless of if the case appears weak or strong suggests a skewed starting point.

 

 

 

 

 

Here is my favourite quote

 

Basically it says Cases turn on small details

 

Megarry J in John v Rees [1970] 1 Ch 345, 402

 

"As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations that, by discussion, suffered a change"

 

 

If you don't have ALL the facts don't advise for or against legal action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dondada..

 

How many ET's have you directly been involved in?

You wont answer that question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't have ALL the facts don't advise for or against legal action

 

Great.

Since you’ve pointed out in the past that only the OP has ALL the facts, are you suggesting there is no point in offering advice?

When are you:

a) going to start “practicing what you preach”,

b) answer about your ET experience.......

 

I’d prefer those who say instead “based on what has been posted, there are good grounds for taking a case to an ET”, or

“Based on what has been posted there seem slim (or no) grounds for taking a case to an ET”, and I’m more likely to be persuaded by someone who seems able to consider a range of cases and come to that range of conclusions, based on their real life experiences.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thread temporarily closed until the OP wishes it be re open.


We could do with some help from you.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

    Donate button something to the Consumer Action Group   

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Tweets

  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • I was talked into signing up with Future Comms (future-comms.co.uk) who cold-called me to change my mobile contract to them, via 02, rather than EE. I have a small business (only me!) and it's a business contract. True, the 4G network is better for my area. This company seemed to be a marketing set-up for various telecoms companies, so I assumed anything I signed would be with 02 and didn't think it might be a problem.
       
      They sent an email whilst I was on the phone to set up the direct debit mandate with my bank which I signed electronically. That was the first, of many, problems I found. Apparently THAT was my contract, binding me to 3 years and no 'cooling off' period, because I was a 'business' (meaning any consumer rights did not apply). When I subsequently asked in writing for a copy of my contract, that is what they sent - when I argued it was a DD mandate they insisted it was my contract!
       
      2 days later they asked for my phone details to get it unlocked which I sent. 10 days later, EE closed my account, so I changed the SIM card to 02 that had come a few days before. No network! They had done nothing about unlocking it. Fortunately I was lucky with EE who managed to give me the right codes, rather than the usual 10 days to go through Samsung.
       
      By this time I was suspicious of their set-up and wanted to cancel. As I said earlier, I found myself trapped into a 3 year contract with no 14 day cooling off period (they don't offer that). Promises to deal with my complaints never happened, promised return calls neither....and on and on.
       
      Ofcom's rules apply to consumers and small businesses (under 10 employees), yet this shower don't acknowledge that. They just repeat and repeat that I am a business so it doesn't apply. To cancel the contract I have to pay the full 3 year's fees!!
       
      I would like to know if others have had similar experiences? Or does anyone know how I can maybe declare the 'contract' unenforceable? I have never before been locked into something without a clear written contract, with t&c's! And, yes, I have asked, and yes, I have been ignored.
      • 84 replies
    • Future comms!. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415706-future-comms/
      • 8 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...