I Won My Tribunal But They Won't Pay

[steampowered]

I completely agree with everything said by Pusillanimous. I won't repeat the same points, just to note that I would run with something very simple. The fact that you are (I think?) out of time for filing this is another reason to keep it very short.

 

The other point to re-emphasise is that appeals can only be made on what are called errors of law. The EAT will not analyse the evidence, it will not re-review the evidence, it will not hear witnesses - if anything like that needs to happen the case would be remitted back down to the Employment Tribunal for another hearing. The EAT's role is to decide whether there has been an error of law such that the judge was not entitled to reach the decision he made. You should NOT attempt to have the same arguments that were had at ET level, keep it brief and on-point. You should NOT attempt to introduce evidence about what someone said or did in the past - this cannot be entertained since the EAT is not there to hear factual evidence and it will not make any determination as to whether the factual evidence is correct.

 

You should also not speculate as to the reasons why the judge might have made the decision he did. This is a bad move since it makes it look like the judge did not give adequate reasons which is a possible ground of appeal. Please stick to the reasons given in the judgment.

 

You first paragraph is fine but the second and third need to be dumped I'm afraid. I would go with something more like:

 

The Applicant must prove that the Employment Tribunal made an error in law in reaching its decision. The Applicant has not satisfied this burden. It is submitted that the Employment Tribunal properly found that the Respondent was an employee based on evidence presented to it.

 

Addressing the points made in the Notice of Appeal [keep it brief]:

 

Addressing the points raised by the judge at the Rule 3(10) hearing on [date] at which I was not present:

 

The finding that HairBear had signed a contract at p54 of the ET bundle in 2000: [one or two sentences identifying the evidence presented to the ET which supported this finding - refer to the judgment if possible. DON'T write a long essay and DON'T introduce new facts or new evidence which was not clearly introduced at ET level.]

[Hair Bear]

Thanks fellas. Steampowered, are you saying that if I lose this round it goes back to a Tribunal?

 

Also, I tried to contact you directly to clarify some of the rules of the forum but you've exceeded your storage space.

 

Beyond that, I was wondering if it was possible to hire someone on here to help with this? That way I can email the notice of appeal directly, because my answering each of the Appellant's many points, even briefly, it too tricky for me because I don't know the law enough to do that.

[honeybee13]

Thanks fellas. Steampowered, I tried to contact you directly to clarify some of the rules of the forum but you've exceeded your storage space.

 

Beyond that, I was wondering if it was possible to hire someone on here to help with this? That way I can email the notice of appeal directly, because my answering each of the Appellant's many points, even briefly, it too tricky for me because I don't know the law enough to do that.

 

Hello there.

 

I'm sorry, people here are not for hire, it isn't how we work. We can't recommend lawyers and the like, but we can tell you where to look if you don't know.

 

HB

[Hair Bear]

Hello there.

 

I'm sorry, people here are not for hire, it isn't how we work. We can't recommend lawyers and the like, but we can tell you where to look if you don't know.

 

HB

 

I keep trying to ring Citizen's Advice, with no luck, as a friend said I'm possibly entitled to a free barrister. I also tried a chambers in Manchester (I'd have to take out a loan for one of those though) but they couldn't even be bothered to respond

[Hair Bear]

Is it possible for me to place this case online with all the names changed and direct the forum to where it is online? That would be so much easier.

[honeybee13]

Is it possible for me to place this case online with all the names changed and direct the forum to where it is online? That would be so much easier.

 

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

 

HB

[Hair Bear]

I mean, rather than me trying to type bits and pieces here, if I somehow manage to post the entire transcript of the Notice of Appeal onto an alternative website (so that Forum members had access to it) would that be okay? Or am I not allowed to post website addresses on here?

[honeybee13]

I mean, rather than me trying to type bits and pieces here, if I somehow manage to post the entire transcript of the Notice of Appeal onto an alternative website (so that Forum members had access to it) would that be okay? Or am I not allowed to post website addresses on here?

 

Hi. This isn't how we normally operate I'm afraid, we like to keep advice on the thread. Is there anything to stop you posting up a redacted transcript here? A pdf would work.

 

Edit: if you want to PM me and explain what you're trying to achieve, I'll do my best to help you.

 

HB

[Hair Bear]

Breaking news, see further post

Edited February 21, 2014 by Hair Bear
New breaking news

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

I think that should be OK, but the guys will comment if they don't agree. I can see a company name or two in there, which I think you should edit unless they're names you made up, and maybe you could doublecheck that you don't have anyone's real name.

 

HB

[Hair Bear]

Hello again.

 

I think that should be OK, but the guys will comment if they don't agree. I can see a company name or two in there, which I think you should edit unless they're names you made up, and maybe you could doublecheck that you don't have anyone's real name.

 

HB

Double checked. All names are made up. I've now added a caption to highlight this.

[honeybee13]

Double checked. All names are made up. I've now added a caption to highlight this.

 

Excellent, thank you.

 

HB

[Hair Bear]

BREAKING NEWS

 

No need to write the Response, apparently. After much effort and many days I've finally managed to have a lengthy discussion with the barrister who originally won me the case back in 2012. He's convinced that their Appeal has no grounds to be in force because, according to him, their being dissolved disqualifies them from doing so. He says that he will write me a letter to instruct the relevant people that any further efforts to include me in such a legal process and I will apply for charges against them. He says that all results that stood before their being disqualified still stand, which is great because my winning case came before their being struck off. Well chuffed. I realise this doesn't mean I can necessarily get much, if anything, out of them cash-wise, but at least it's a starter for ten!

[honeybee13]

Hello again. That sounds very hopeful for you. Thank you for letting us know and fingers crossed.

 

HB

[Hair Bear]

Will keep all informed, of course. And opinions always welcome.

[Hair Bear]

I have received this from the barrister who originally dealt with my case. I would be grateful for feedback before I send my Response to the EAT...

 

"...having been dissolved the company is not in a position to conduct litigation. Once dissolved a company is deemed not to exist. The Employment Appeal Tribunal ought to be informed of this, at which point the Appellant...will be prevented from continuing with the appeal....

 

In the meantime, however, the Appellant should not be conducting litigation having been dissolved. Mr X will be aware of this as the Secretary of the company and the company was dissolved at the time of his appeal. When notifying the EAT of this fact, I would also recommend threatening to seek wasted costs from Mr x personally.

 

I would therefore recommend writing to the EAT completing the form titled “respondent’s answer”, attaching the printouts above [there are two; they are Companies House documents that show X Ltd as being dissolved] and filling in paragraph 3 in the following terms:

 

“It has recently come to the Claimant’s attention that the Appellant, x Limited, was dissolved on 13th November 2012. The Appellant, therefore, has no standing in these proceedings until the company is restored to the register.

 

Furthermore, the appellant had no standing at the time of making the application to appeal and as the Secretary of the company the Appellant’s representative, Mr x, ought to have been aware that he was unable to conduct litigation having after voluntarily striking the company off the register. In fact, at the time of dissolution the company was still engaged in the conduct of litigation and should not have applied for voluntary strike off. Whomever made such an application is likely to have committed an offence under s.1004 of the Companies Act 2006.

 

In light of the wasted costs that have followed, therefore, the Claimant seeks an order for wasted costs against the Appellant’s representative, Mr x, in accordance with Rule 34C on the basis that Mr x’s conduct was improper, unreasonable and/or it is reasonable to expect him to pay for the Claimant’s wasted costs as a result. A schedule will be prepared in due course.”

 

If such an application is successful, under rule 34D a litigant in person is entitled to the following costs:

 

(a) costs for the same categories of work and disbursements which would have been allowed if he had been represented by a legal representative;

(b) payments made by him for legal services relating to the conduct of the proceedings;

© the costs of obtaining expert assistance in assessing the costs claim;

(d) other expenses incurred by him in relation to the proceedings.

 

These costs must not exceed two-thirds of the amount which would have been allowed if you had been represented by a legal representative. The amount that you will be allowed in respect of any item of work differs according to whether or not you can prove financial loss (i.e. loss of earnings). If you can prove financial loss, the amount will be that which you can prove he had lost for the time reasonably spent doing the work. If you cannot prove financial loss, the amount will be that which the EAT considers reasonably spent doing the work at an hourly rate of £32 (or £33 if it’s after April 2014). A litigant in person who is awarded costs will not be entitled to a witness allowance as well.

 

I would recommend preparing a written Schedule setting out all the time spent by you in preparation of this case and appeal since the date of dissolution of the company and any costs, travel, postage etc. This is not a blank cheque but should be a reasonable estimate and broken down for each separate item of work. This should then be served on Mr x and the tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing."

[smokejumper]

Did this barrister have any comments on the solicitor that messed up.

[Hair Bear]

Did this barrister have any comments on the solicitor that messed up.

 

He came across fairly cagey when I put it to him and said it was possible to sue him but didn't expand on it and changed subjects very quickly. Whether this was down to his agreeing with steampowered (who didn't think suing the solicitor viable) or because he gets a lot of work from my ex-solicitor, who knows. I'm with you, though, the solicitor should take some responsibility for this mess. I mean, the botch up with the strike off aside, the reason I went through the last appeal and would have continued through this appeal too was because he passed the information on and never once said I didn't need to bother. Indeed, it was he who put the last bundle together.

[steampowered]

Sounds like the barrister has been very helpful, good on him.

 

Further to your PM, I basically agree with his comments. I would however BRIEFLY add reference to the other stuff and at least mention that the previous judge's decision was adequately supported by the evidence presented to him, and that the Applicant's Notice of Appeal (presumably) does not raise any valid point of law. You can't be 100% certain that the appeal will be dismissed on the basis that the company has been dissolved.

 

The most important thing is to get this into the EAT ASAP. There are cases where replies have been disallowed by the EAT on the basis of being served out of time. As a litigant in person and as the form was received late you should get away with missing the deadline by a bit but I wouldn't push it.

[Hair Bear]

I would however BRIEFLY add reference to the other stuff and at least mention that the previous judge's decision was adequately supported by the evidence presented to himQUOTE]

 

Thanks steampowered. Where do I write the brief reference to the other stuff, with the barrister's strike off comments which are under paragraph 3 "The grounds on which the Respondent will rely are (here set out grounds which differ from hose relied upon by the Employment Tribunal or Certification Officer)" or else paragraph 5 "The Respondent's grounds of appeal are (here state the grounds of appeal)"?

[steampowered]

On second thoughts, perhaps just put 'The grounds on which the respondent will rely are the grounds relied upon by the employment tribunalfor making the judgment, decisionor order appealed from and the following grounds:' followed by the wording suggested by your barrister in following 3.

 

At the end, and within paragraph 3, perhaps add a sentence along the lines 'Further and in ther alternative, the notice of appeal does not reveal any particular error of law and the Tribunal was entitled to reach its decision based on the evidence properly presented to it'.

 

In the first paragraph of your barrister's wording, I would add the words 'unless and' before the word 'until' in order to avoid accidentally giving the impression that an application to restore the company to the register is underway or is being contemplated.

[Hair Bear]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed. I've now sent the Response, via email, and London EAT's rep has confirmed they have it in time and that all is in order.

 

steampowered: that "until" was a good spot, cheers. I can see how its use might have had them thinking, "Sounds like the company is going to go back on the register imminently, so we might as well do the appeal anyway". To take away any confusion I just chopped the line down to "The Appellant, therefore, has no standing in these proceedings". Hope that wasn't wrong of me

[steampowered]

That's fine, good stuff.

[Grotesque]

Rollercoaster!

[Hair Bear]

Rollercoaster!

 

Perfect description, and I'm sure there's a few twists and turns yet to come.