Employment Tribunal Hearing grounds of discrimination ( pregnancy )

[BazzaS]

His wife, who as i see matters, is being used by the respondent and his legal adviser as being responsible for employing and dismissing my daughter which was most certainly not the case, as a bad medical condition, which as i understand led to her leaving the company in 2007, this is somewhat supported by the data registry of FRA which shows she left the company in 2007 and under the register deemed inactive as to the company or any other company, for that matter.

 

He used my daughter andtreated her with contempt, from where i am sat, it would appear that using his sick wife who has a long term illness for his wrongs, shows just hat we are up against, he is a vile person.

 

Perhaps, but : you need to focus on the law, not emotion

Your judgement is against her : if that is wrong you might have argued against it before, but it is who you now have judgement against.

 

Does she have assets you can enforce against?

[andydub64]

In a nutshell, no assets, or if she did, she would not have now, for judgement debt!

 

So do i go after the spouse, who would have assets, as suggested as being the tribunal order was made against spouse, as referred to by Steampowered yday.

[BazzaS]

In a nutshell, no assets, or if she did, she would not have now, for judgement debt!

 

So do i go after the spouse, who would have assets, as suggested as being the tribunal order was made against spouse, as referred to by Steampowered yday.

 

Colour me confused.

When you say "spouse" it is unclear if you mean husband or wife.

 

You can only go after the one listed in the judgement, as previously advised. It is only worth trying to enforce if they have assets (legal or beneficial interests......)

 

Is the company named on the judgement and does it have assets?

[andydub64]

Her name was on all the cheques paid out, with the company name underneath,sorry to be a bit confusing but this lot deal in finance so I need to be on the ball and try and cover all methods they will use to get out of being liable.

[BazzaS]

Colour me confused.

When you say "spouse" it is unclear if you mean husband or wife.

 

You can only go after the one listed in the judgement, as previously advised. It is only worth trying to enforce if they have assets (legal or beneficial interests......)

 

Is the company named on the judgement and does it have assets?

 

Her name was on all the cheques paid out, with the company name underneath,sorry to be a bit confusing but this lot deal in finance so I need to be on the ball and try and cover all methods they will use to get out of being liable.

 

Part of "being on the ball" is answering a (relevant) question asked.

It has taken a number of postings to try to establish if the company is a limited company, and who the judgement is against.

 

You don't have to "be a bit confusing" : if a question is clear, answer it (and not some other question!).

If you don't think a question is clear, ask for clarification.

 

Now you are saying the wife doesn't have assets.

Before it was:

If the respondent claims to have no assets but his wife has the means and assets to cover a judgement debt, can the debt be recovered from the spouse?

 

You've been asked "Is the company named on the judgement and does it have assets?" but for some reason haven't answered.

 

You need to get your story straight.

Does the husband have assets?

Does the wife have assets?

Does the company have assets? (& please confirm it isn't a limited company)

 

Who exactly is named on the judgment? (One or more individuals, and is the company named or not).

 

Between the thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?460299-Advice-Needed-on-best-option-to-enforce-a-judgement&p=4864308#post4864308

and here (do the threads need merging?) you could have had a definitive answer : but haven't with the changing information and lack of detail.

[andydub64]

Hi Bazza,

 

I have stated that the company is not a limited company, but I have also confirmed that the company were removed from proceedings and Mr Smith, named as respondent, my daughters boss.

 

As far as we are concerned, any judgement order if acheived would read Mr Smith as the respondent.

 

On this judgement is clearly states Mrs Smith and the company removed as being the respondent?

 

I have not written the judgement I am only explaining what the judgement reads, which is wrong.

 

As for assets, we do not know who owns the company because the Court have in theory named two separate respondents, Mrs Smith being added on the judgement order.

 

There is a clear motive for Mr Smith not to be liable, the judgment now provided by the judge, goes someway in removing not on the liability, but naming someone else who had no bearing on any judgement for unfair dismissal, until Mrs Smiths name suddenly appeared on the judgement form.

[steampowered]

This is very confusing. It isn't an issue I've come across before. I don't know what to suggest - happy to take a look if you are perhaps able to post up a scan of the order (with personal details removed), or it may be worth taking it down to the CAB.

 

If the identity of the respondent/respondents were to change, there should be a Tribunal order stating that. It is more likely that the switcharound on the judgment was a mistake (although the order may very well be against both Mr and Mrs Smith). It may be worth calling the Tribunal to clarify.

[BazzaS]

Hi Bazza,

 

I have stated that the company is not a limited company, but I have also confirmed that the company were removed from proceedings and Mr Smith, named as respondent, my daughters boss.

 

As far as we are concerned, any judgement order if acheived would read Mr Smith as the respondent.

 

On this judgement is clearly states Mrs Smith and the company removed as being the respondent?

 

I have not written the judgement I am only explaining what the judgement reads, which is wrong.

 

As for assets, we do not know who owns the company because the Court have in theory named two separate respondents, Mrs Smith being added on the judgement order.

 

There is a clear motive for Mr Smith not to be liable, the judgment now provided by the judge, goes someway in removing not on the liability, but naming someone else who had no bearing on any judgement for unfair dismissal, until Mrs Smiths name suddenly appeared on the judgement form.

 

"As for assets, we do not know who owns the company" : it doesn't matter who owns the company, IF the company has recoverable assets and is named on the judgement!

 

So, who has recoverable assets (& if none of him, her or the company have assets how do you expect to enforce judgement?)

This is why I asked

Does the husband have assets?

Does the wife have assets?

Does the company have assets?

 

You still haven't answered this.

 

Having identified what assets are available, you then need to ensure you are actually able to go after them. This is why I asked:

Who exactly is named on the judgment? (One or more individuals, and is the company named or not).

 

Again, the picture isn't yet clear as you haven't given a clear reply.

 

If there are recoverable assets held by a party named on the judgement : enforce against them.

 

If the only recoverable assets are held by a party not named on the judgement and you think the court has not named them by an error : either

A) apply to have the error corrected, or

B) if an asset (eg in land) : does the party named on the judgement have a beneficial interest in that asset that you could get a charge over?

 

Are there recoverable assets? If not, suing may be a hollow victory, as you get your judgement but can't enforce it.

[andydub64]

The judge in the judgement order has incorrectly stated " that it was established that Mrs Smith was the respondent", that is news to me and my daughter.

 

The trial bundle and its contents, and in particular, the respondents bundle which was a 85 page volume, fails to even mention Mrs Smith, so how on earth has, was or how could this have been established at trial??

 

What was established at trial was the respondents had previously breached a judges order to identify the legal name of the respondent, this order as were most of the others, not complied with.

 

Had Mrs Smith been identified as the respondent, pursuant to the pre-trial directions some five months previously, this would have been quite rightly challenged, ignoring the order denied my daughter her legal right in such event to challenge.

 

I will be inviting the judge to (a) give reason's why most of the orders/directions were allowed to be ignored, which clearly would be deemed as not being in the interest of justice (b) On what evidence was adduced during the trial that would demonstrate this was established, which is denied, at best and in legal terms, i would have assumed it was merely an allegation without one strand of proof that would show otherwise.

[BazzaS]

I wrote

"As for assets, we do not know who owns the company" : it doesn't matter who owns the company, IF the company has recoverable assets and is named on the judgement!

 

So, who has recoverable assets (& if none of him, her or the company have assets how do you expect to enforce judgement?)

This is why I asked

 

 

You still haven't answered this.

 

Having identified what assets are available, you then need to ensure you are actually able to go after them. This is why I asked:

 

 

Again, the picture isn't yet clear as you haven't given a clear reply.

 

If there are recoverable assets held by a party named on the judgement : enforce against them.

 

If the only recoverable assets are held by a party not named on the judgement and you think the court has not named them by an error : either

A) apply to have the error corrected, or

B) if an asset (eg in land) : does the party named on the judgement have a beneficial interest in that asset that you could get a charge over?

 

Are there recoverable assets? If not, suing may be a hollow victory, as you get your judgement but can't enforce it.

 

You replied

The judge in the judgement order has incorrectly stated " that it was established that Mrs Smith was the respondent", that is news to me and my daughter.

 

The trial bundle and its contents, and in particular, the respondents bundle which was a 85 page volume, fails to even mention Mrs Smith, so how on earth has, was or how could this have been established at trial??

 

What was established at trial was the respondents had previously breached a judges order to identify the legal name of the respondent, this order as were most of the others, not complied with.

 

Had Mrs Smith been identified as the respondent, pursuant to the pre-trial directions some five months previously, this would have been quite rightly challenged, ignoring the order denied my daughter her legal right in such event to challenge.

 

I will be inviting the judge to (a) give reason's why most of the orders/directions were allowed to be ignored, which clearly would be deemed as not being in the interest of justice (b) On what evidence was adduced during the trial that would demonstrate this was established, which is denied, at best and in legal terms, i would have assumed it was merely an allegation without one strand of proof that would show otherwise.

 

All very interesting & "Good luck with that".

Pointless if "Mr Smith" doesn't have assets and the company does.

Counterproductive if Mr Smith and the company don't have assets & Mrs Smith does.

 

Did you feel my questions regarding 'where any assets are' not relevant?

Are you interested in recovering the judgement or getting a (potentially non-recoverable) judgement against one person?

[Emmzzi]

I think you may be confusing "who was mean to your daughter" with "what's the legal entity which has to pay up."

 

You have no idea who owns what, including the business assets; but you know she signs the cheques. It is possible in this century for women to own things. I am not sure why you think the judge is wrong?

[andydub64]

You seem a little confused by the point that I am trying to make, I am not saying woman should not own things, quite the reverse, I have just proved a woman rights should not be an issue, by successfully winning my daughters claim for the most blatant of treatment that should as you put " possible in this century " discriminating not only a woman, but a pregnant one, which would dismiss any suggestion that you feel that I am some sort of male chauvinist, which clearly, I am not.

[andydub64]

And the judge is wrong by naming a woman, as to cover the liabilities clearly owed by that woman's husband, that's why the judge is wrong..

[andydub64]

Bazza

 

As all three have been named as being known respondents, Mrs Smith thereafter judgement,by the judge,we will now enforce the judgement against him, his wife and the company.

 

As the same time 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, which and but for,there would be no doubting what respondent is liable.

 

Maybe Mr Smith was not allowed to run a business, period, there is a motive, don't think we are that much further from proving the motives.

[Emmzzi]

Mrs Smith t/a name of company employs Mr Smith

 

Mrs Smith is the one to go after. She is responsible for the actions of her employees.

 

If she works you can get an attachment of earnings.....

 

The motive is entirely irrelevant

[andydub64]

Mrs Smith does not own the company, pay the wages, employ, receive government funding to employ apprenticeship, pay tax,nor has the DWP asked her to repay any state benefits paid because of Mr Smiths actions, she may well have to use a bank account in her name because Mr Smith is barred from trading, now there's a thought, and another motive which is entirely relevant, or could be. Mrs Smith is to ill to work so there would be no logics in applying for an attachment of earnings. Mrs Smith is being used by Mr Smith because of his liabilities that he now owes my daughter.

[BazzaS]

Bazza

 

As all three have been named as being known respondents, Mrs Smith thereafter judgement,by the judge,we will now enforce the judgement against him, his wife and the company.

 

As the same time 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, which and but for,there would be no doubting what respondent is liable.

 

Maybe Mr Smith was not allowed to run a business, period, there is a motive, don't think we are that much further from proving the motives.

 

"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.........

 

PS : where are the assets? Can you enforce against him??

 

If you are serious about recovering the judgement sum, that should be your key focus ..... and you still haven't answered!

What is your aim?

Having "Mr Smith" held responsible or recovering the judgement sum?

The 2 might not be synonymous.......

[Emmzzi]

Mrs Smith does not own the company, pay the wages, employ, receive government funding to employ apprenticeship, pay tax,nor has the DWP asked her to repay any state benefits paid because of Mr Smiths actions, she may well have to use a bank account in her name because Mr Smith is barred from trading, now there's a thought, and another motive which is entirely relevant, or could be. Mrs Smith is to ill to work so there would be no logics in applying for an attachment of earnings. Mrs Smith is being used by Mr Smith because of his liabilities that he now owes my daughter.

 

how do you know that, exactly? How do you know who pays what tax and who gets what benefits? If it isn't a limited company - and you have said that it is not - then the accounts are not open book to all comers.

 

what's the names on the cheques issued?

 

what's the name written on the payslip?

 

You're not being very clear I am afraid. We can only go on what you tell us and it sounds like she is the legal owner of the company from what you have said so far.

 

You also said she was in financial services, and now she is unemployed and ill?

[Emmzzi]

What is your aim?

Having "Mr Smith" held responsible or recovering the judgement sum?

The 2 might not be synonymous.......

 

I agree completely.

[Emmzzi]

Just reading back, all of these points add up. They are from your posts. You do not have to be active in the running of the business to be the owner of the business.

 

POST 42

Would appreciate some advice on the legal entity of the employer who this case was against, because there was a dispute as to the name on which the respondent was to be known as.

 

This was the first question the employment judge at the Pre-hearing addressed as she had done a search on the company via companies house and the company was not listed.

 

She ordered that within 14 days the respondent disclose the legal entity of her we were affectedly suing, the company came back and stated it was the owners wife?, who as i understand matters had nothing to do with the company.

 

POST 103

 

Mr Smith told the judge that he worked for Mrs Smith, in his judgement the judge clearly indicates it was established that Mrs Smith owned the company

 

POST 114

 

Her name was on all the cheques paid out, with the company name underneath

[andydub64]

The aim is for the judgement sum recovered, but thats my point, it should not be an aim, Mr Smith, who is fully responsible, is trying to be clever, if he was, he would have won the case, which he lost and he would not being using his wife as being liable, she's not.

 

As for any assets and can i enforce them?? If Mr Smith wants to add to his record of telling fibs under oath, i wont stop him.

[Emmzzi]

The aim is for the judgement sum recovered, but thats my point, it should not be an aim, Mr Smith, who is fully responsible, is trying to be clever, if he was, he would have won the case, which he lost and he would not being using his wife as being liable, she's not.

 

As for any assets and can i enforce them?? If Mr Smith wants to add to his record of telling fibs under oath, i wont stop him.

 

Sorry Andy - you aren't providing any new facts here. I am not sure anyone can help without knowing the true picture, beyond what has already been said. Perhaps you can get a cheque or payslip from your daughter and check the details?

[BazzaS]

Sorry Andy - you aren't providing any new facts here. I am not sure anyone can help without knowing the true picture, beyond what has already been said.

 

+1.

 

Either the OP doesn't know if there are assets, or knows but isn't telling us.

 

(See also http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?460299-Advice-Needed-on-best-option-to-enforce-a-judgement&p=4864308#post4864308 )

 

Either way, it makes it hard to offer reliable advice.

[andydub64]

Thanks for the advice Emnzzi, appreciated.

[Emmzzi]

Thanks for the advice Emnzzi, appreciated.

 

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