Employment issue

[Larrysmith]

Please help!

Following a favorable judgement of victimisation,I was invited to a meeting by my employer after refusing to exit my employment.

The package of the meeting however contained clearly laid down step by my employers solicitor to terminate my employment .I have since sent a copy to the tribunal as the letter also stated the remedy date had been adjourned and I was not aware of such.

My employer solicitor has now written to me to return the document because it was inadvertently sent to me,I have also b threatened with consequences of distributing the document because they are claiming protection under some LLP( legal litigation professional) or something along the line.

Please note document was posted to my door,it bears neither confidential nor without prejudice on it,it was addressed to no one but titled in my name versus my employer.

I hope to be able to rely on the document if the plan is executed ,how can I preserve this document so that I can rely on it in court because ve been threatened that I can't present it in court.

Please help,

[Sidewinder]

I have moved your thread to the Employment forum.

 

Although I stand to be corrected I fear that the employer's solicitor may be right - if it constitutes advice (or is part of ongoing advice) between solicitor and client as a part of litigation proceedings then it will be subject to Legal Professional Privilege (LPP). I do not believe that privilege can be waived just by sending the 'other side' otherwise confidential documents.

 

So - having had sight of the document may put you in an advantageous position so far as understanding what strategy they may be looking at, but you cannot share or disclose any part of the document that you have seen, or its contents as part of the proceedings.

[Larrysmith]

Thank u so much,that is quite enlightening

[SweetLorraine]

Nice break Larrysmith, at least you know of its existence and have a copy of it; it must be quite uncomfortable for the other side to know you have it.

 

Also a pleasant thought to assume that someone on the other side is now housing one hell of rocket, up where the sun doesn't shine because of this error. Nice to read that the employer makes mistakes as well. Quite cheered me up that.

[Pusillanimous]

As a matter of interest and without disclosing identification of persons, what does this document actually say?

 

 

Is it normal legal practice, anyone?

[Larrysmith]

Nice break Larrysmith, at least you know of its existence and have a copy of it; it must be quite uncomfortable for the other side to know you have it.

 

Also a pleasant thought to assume that someone on the other side is now housing one hell of rocket, up where the sun doesn't shine because of this error. Nice to read that the employer makes mistakes as well. Quite cheered me up that.

 

Thank u,it's being a long battle and shocking that a finding of victimisation does not hinder further premeditated victimisation .Its indeed kool to see how plans made in secret was delivered to my door.

[Pusillanimous]

Larrysmith, it would be so cool if you could reveal what this document says.

[Larrysmith]

As a matter of interest and without disclosing identification of persons, what does this document actually say?

 

 

Is it normal legal practice, anyone?

Basically in a paraphrase, the document states this person has been succesful twice out of 4times.It went on to say they have a good chance of success if it happens again so they need to be rid off.

It then went on to state exactly how it's gonna be achieved step by step and concluded that there would be a further victimisation claim but at least they would no longer be employed while the case is being defended.

It's very sad but it's true and it's even worst that nothing can be done with such document because of some protection.I haven't money to do anything about it so I ll just left it go but it's great to see what goes on behind close doors.

[Pusillanimous]

Victimisation only comes under the Equality Act, so these lawyers have encouraged your employers to break the law How corrupt.

 

At least the tribunal have accidentally seen it.

[Pusillanimous]

Are you able to PM me the document, larrysmith? I'd be really grateful.

[Emmzzi]

Are you able to PM me the document, larrysmith? I'd be really grateful.

 

What's your motive? This sounds a little suspicious!

[Larrysmith]

Are you able to PM me the document, larrysmith? I'd be really grateful.

 

Am sorry, I won't do that.

[silverfox1961]

Are you able to PM me the document, larrysmith? I'd be really grateful.

 

Absolutely out of the question. Sharing this document will only lead to trouble

Am sorry, I won't do that.

 

Good!

 

Where confidentiality is a question, it is vital that nobody (other than the parties involved) sees it. Asking to PM the documents is something that will not be allowed no matter how genuine the request is.

[Larrysmith]

I have moved your thread to the Employment forum.

 

Although I stand to be corrected I fear that the employer's solicitor may be right - if it constitutes advice (or is part of ongoing advice) between solicitor and client as a part of litigation proceedings then it will be subject to Legal Professional Privilege (LPP). I do not believe that privilege can be waived just by sending the 'other side' otherwise confidential documents.

 

So - having had sight of the document may put you in an advantageous position so far as understanding what strategy they may be looking at, but you cannot share or disclose any part of the document that you have seen, or its contents as part of the proceedings.

 

Has anyone got any helpful hint for me at representing myself at a remedy hearing please!

[Pusillanimous]

OK. Not sure why Emzzi considers it suspicious, though.

[Pusillanimous]

For the record, legal privilege does not apply to communications with the express purpose of furthering a fraudulent or improper purpose. It is arguable larrysmith's employers can hide behind legal privilege if they were knowingly committing an illegal act in so doing.

[Larrysmith]

For the record, legal privilege does not apply to communications with the express purpose of furthering a fraudulent or improper purpose. It is arguable larrysmith's employers can hide behind legal privilege if they were knowingly committing an illegal act in so doing.

 

Useful information above.Considering ve been warned against further distribution,the sensible thing 4 me is not to risk the consequences of distributing especially when I can't afford legal cost.I appreciate your information above and would appreciate any referral to further reading if u are able to guide me.

[Pusillanimous]

I would recommend you invest in a good barrister for the remedy hearing. Take out a loan if necessary ( credit unions are good). Shouldn't be too much for half a day.

 

Worth asking barrister if he/she can handle the accidental disclosure issue.

[Larrysmith]

I would recommend you invest in a good barrister for the remedy hearing. Take out a loan if necessary ( credit unions are good). Shouldn't be too much for half a day.

 

Worth asking barrister if he/she can handle the accidental disclosure issue.

 

Thanks

[steampowered]

If the remedies hearing is only considering the level of compensation to be paid, this email is not relevant and you shouldn't be too concerned about it. It would only come into play if there was an issue along the lines of whether you have been dismissed or whether you should be reinstated.

 

Frankly their solicitors have no excuse for acting in such a careless manner. There is also no excuse for failing to indicate which documents are privileged when dealing with litigation - this is really basic stuff for a legal professional. In your position I would take an aggressive approach on this. It sounds like this document was subject to legal professional privilege. However, privileged documents cease to be privileged once they have been disclosed to the other side.

 

There has been lots of case law on this. The law basically says that if it is very obvious to the other side that the disclosure was accidental, there has been no waiver of privilege and the documents must be returned. However this is a very strict test. It is a bit of a grey area whether the test would be met in your case.

 

In your position I would respond to the other side's solicitors stating that my position is that the document has been disclosed and that I reserve the right to use it in future proceedings. I would point out that solicitors are expected to show a certain standard of care and that their opposite sides are entitled to assume that documents are validly disclosed, particularly where the other side is a litigant in person. I would also point out that the document does not include any indication that it might be privileged. I would also quote the following paragraphs from the Court of Appeal judgment in this case (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/780.html), which are self-explanatory.

 

i) A party giving inspection of documents must decide before doing so what privileged documents he wishes to allow the other party to see and what he does not.

ii) Although the privilege is that of the client and not the solicitor, a party clothes his solicitor with ostensible authority (if not implied or express authority) to waive privilege in respect of relevant documents.

iii) A solicitor considering documents made available by the other party to litigation owes no duty of care to that party and is in general entitled to assume that any privilege which might otherwise have been claimed for such documents has been waived.

iv) In these circumstances, where a party has given inspection of documents, including privileged documents which he has allowed the other party to inspect by mistake, it will in general be too late for him to claim privilege in order to attempt to correct the mistake by obtaining injunctive relief.

 

If you do have cause to use the email, then get it included in the bundle. If the other side refuse to include it in the bundle, then raise this as a preliminary issue at the very start of the hearing. Even if the Tribunal decides you cannot use the email it will be hugely embarrassing for them to have to explain to a Tribunal why it was carelessly circulated to a litigant in person.

[Larrysmith]

If the remedies hearing is only considering the level of compensation to be paid, this email is not relevant and you shouldn't be too concerned about it. It would only come into play if there was an issue along the lines of whether you have been dismissed or whether you should be reinstated.

 

Frankly their solicitors have no excuse for acting in such a careless manner. There is also no excuse for failing to indicate which documents are privileged when dealing with litigation - this is really basic stuff for a legal professional. In your position I would take an aggressive approach on this. It sounds like this document was subject to legal professional privilege. However, privileged documents cease to be privileged once they have been disclosed to the other side.

 

 

 

There has been lots of case law on this. The law basically says that if it is very obvious to the other side that the disclosure was accidental, there has been no waiver of privilege and the documents must be returned. However this is a very strict test. It is a bit of a grey area whether the test would be met in your case.

 

In your position I would respond to the other side's solicitors stating that my position is that the document has been disclosed and that I reserve the right to use it in future proceedings. I would point out that solicitors are expected to show a certain standard of care and that their opposite sides are entitled to assume that documents are validly disclosed, particularly where the other side is a litigant in person. I would also point out that the document does not include any indication that it might be privileged. I would also quote the following paragraphs from the Court of Appeal judgment in this case (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/780.html), which are self-explanatory.

 

i) A party giving inspection of documents must decide before doing so what privileged documents he wishes to allow the other party to see and what he does not.

ii) Although the privilege is that of the client and not the solicitor, a party clothes his solicitor with ostensible authority (if not implied or express authority) to waive privilege in respect of relevant documents.

iii) A solicitor considering documents made available by the other party to litigation owes no duty of care to that party and is in general entitled to assume that any privilege which might otherwise have been claimed for such documents has been waived.

iv) In these circumstances, where a party has given inspection of documents, including privileged documents which he has allowed the other party to inspect by mistake, it will in general be too late for him to claim privilege in order to attempt to correct the mistake by obtaining injunctive relief.

 

If you do have cause to use the email, then get it included in the bundle. If the other side refuse to include it in the bundle, then raise this as a preliminary issue at the very start of the hearing. Even if the Tribunal decides you cannot use the email it will be hugely embarrassing for them to have to explain to a Tribunal why it was carelessly circulated to a litigant in person.

 

Thank u for the wealth of information above.

The remedy is for compensation,they attempted my dismissal but failed.Have been on suspension for approximately 2years but with the tribunal finding in my favor I requested for suspension to be lifted.Suspension has now been lifted but they want me out and I don't think that is right because tribunal found allegation against me unfounded.

 

The interesting thing is a similar document where another solicitor of the same firm steered my employer to commiting an act of unlawful victimisation against me ended on the tribunal table during the hearing and a judgement was clearly made that the solicitor had steered my employer.It is unbelievable that exactly the same thing has now repeated itself only worst than earlier document.

There was nothing to indicate the document sent with other disclosure by my employer is priviledged and a lot of damning documents had been disclosed in the course of the hearing so to be quite honest I thought it's just another one except could not understand why they ll stil do this after an adverse judgement is already being made.

[Grotesque]

What's your motive? This sounds a little suspicious!

 

It's because Pusillanimous is really Larry's lawyer LOL

[steampowered]

Suspended for 2 years? That's a very long time. If they won't have you back then I would think that should be treated as unfair dismissal.

 

Clearly trust has broken down. It might be sensible to write to their solicitors 'without prejudice' making a settlement offer, offering to terminate your employment in exchange for compensation. Presumably the compensation would be calculated as per an anticipated award for unfair dismissal and would include a condition that the employer must give a neutral reference to future employers. You can also make an offer to agree compensation for the victimisation - given that it would save them legal cost for the hearing. They are probably determined to get you out and may be prepared to pay for it.

 

I'm with you on disclosure. Unless it was extremely obvious that this document was privileged, then on balance they will probably be deemed to have disclosed it - though it is a grey area.

[Larrysmith]

Suspended for 2 years? That's a very long time. If they won't have you back then I would think that should be treated as unfair dismissal.

 

Clearly trust has broken down. It might be sensible to write to their solicitors 'without prejudice' making a settlement offer, offering to terminate your employment in exchange for compensation. Presumably the compensation would be calculated as per an anticipated award for unfair dismissal and would include a condition that the employer must give a neutral reference to future employers. You can also make an offer to agree compensation for the victimisation - given that it would save them legal cost for the hearing. They are probably determined to get you out and may be prepared to pay for it.

 

I'm with you on disclosure. Unless it was extremely obvious that this document was privileged, then on balance they will probably be deemed to have disclosed it - though it is a grey area.

 

Thanks a lot, all taken on board.