Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Dormant Company

Employment and Discrimination Law

Re: Dormant Company

Postby dls » Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:39 pm

The use of the earlier ACAS number probably, at best, looks like abuse of process.

I think you over simplify the relevance of the decision, and its implications.

Ypu are better coming across as slightly naive than as pettifogging and manipulative.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12507
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Dormant Company

Postby donarebun » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:12 pm

dls wrote:The use of the earlier ACAS number probably, at best, looks like abuse of process.

I think you over simplify the relevance of the decision, and its implications.

Ypu are better coming across as slightly naive than as pettifogging and manipulative.



Yes, I know the use of old ACAS number looks like an abuse of process.

I did state in the new claim that I was excited at the victory at the Rule 3 (10) Hearing.

I submitted the new claim on the same day as the Rule 3 (10) Hearing, at about 11:29pm.

If the Judge feels that it was an abuse of process, wouldn't it be appropriate to deal with it as such?

He has the power!

I really don't believe I needed to get a new ACAS number when conciliation had failed the first time around.

I wasn't trying to be manipulative

Finally, I don't understand what decision you say I'm oversimplifying?
donarebun
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:10 pm

Re: Dormant Company

Postby dls » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:18 pm

The case is rather more subtle than your simple description.

Iassume that the new case is against a different party. It is not the same case.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12507
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Dormant Company

Postby donarebun » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:28 pm

dls wrote:The case is rather more subtle than your simple description.

Iassume that the new case is against a different party. It is not the same case.


No, the new case is against the same Respondents in the first case.

Like I said earlier, I was signed onto a dormant company

The dormant company has never traded in its 10 years of existence.

I feel that it was discriminatory to have signed me onto such a company.

I feel that it is because I was signed onto a dormant company (with no asset) that my complaint wasn't dealt with effectively.

It is not a different party at all. It is the same parties

That would be wrong on all levels!
donarebun
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:10 pm

Re: Dormant Company

Postby atticus » Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:24 pm

Isn't a new case against the same respondent in respect of the same matter also an abuse?

Isn't the way forward to apply to amend or add to the existing claim?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20642
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Dormant Company

Postby donarebun » Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:42 pm

atticus wrote:Isn't a new case against the same respondent in respect of the same matter also an abuse?

Isn't the way forward to apply to amend or add to the existing claim?


Hi

You are very right.

I’ll be honest here;

I discovered Company (A)’s dormant status on or around the 20th of Nov 2017.

I immediately wrote the Tribunal informing them I wish to amend and add to the Claim

I also informed them that I would be making the Amendment/Addition after the Appeal.

However, during the Rule 3 (10) Hearing (6/12/17) the President of the EAT was very critical of the Tribunal

They (the Tribunal) failed to follow basic procedures (and it wasn’t just one or two, a lot).

With that, I lost confidence in this particular Tribunal

That’s why I decided to make a new Claim based on the new discovery

The EJ is aware of my email of 20th Nov 2017

That’s why he didn’t reject the new claim on the basis that it was an abuse of process.

He is trying to reject it on another basis

That is not legal nor it is right.

If he believes that it is an abuse of process, he has the power to reject it on that ground.

He can’t invent the law.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Although, I don’t believe I was wrong in bringing a new claim but my belief isn’t relevant.

The appropriate law should be used to end my claim.

Thanks guys

I truly appreciate your criticism because as I move forward on this, I will be asked tough questions.
donarebun
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:10 pm

Re: Dormant Company

Postby donarebun » Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:22 pm

Hi Everyone,

Two quick things

One, I have discovered a Case Law that might assist me Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd v Morgan UKEAT/0060/16/RN

It is basically same situation


Anyway, my main issue is this

I have just read a little about Doctrine of Evasion

Which in effect means "no one may evade the operation of otherwise-mandatory provisions if duties and liabilities have been properly imposed or incurred."

If Company A has been set up for the purpose of evading duties and liabilities (I know it is an assumption here) but would I have an additional Claim against them?

I noticed that the Doctrine of Evasion is also defined as Fraud to the Law

Thanks
donarebun
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:10 pm

Re: Dormant Company

Postby dls » Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:06 pm

I am not sure either that the Compass case will help, nor that and 'Doctrine of Evasion' will apply. I have never heard of it within UK law as such. There will be similar provisios no doubt, but you should, I think, identify the wrong first, not work back from a non-native doctrine.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12507
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Dormant Company

Postby donarebun » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:25 pm

Hi all,

I made an Application for Reconsideration

The same Judge decided the Reconsideration application

He still rejected the Claim but the shocking thing is the reason for the rejection.

The first time he rejected it, he stated “the Claimant is using an old ACAS number”

He drew reference to Rule 12 (1)(c)

I made the Reconsideration application pointing out it was an error of Law as Rule 12(1)(c) doesn’t give such powers.

He has now dismissed the Reconsideration on the grounds that “The Claimant presented a new claim against a different respondent using an old ACAS number”

He now quoted Rule 10 (2)(c)(i)

First of all, it is the same respondents (2 actually) and he should know because he dealt with the first Claim.

Crucially, it seems to me that he is just making it up as he goes.

He is changing the rules from time to time.

Is that allowed considering he is a Judge?

Clearing he saw that he can’t reject the Claim under Rule 12 so he has now inserted “presented a new claim against a different respondent”

I really don’t think Judges should be allowed to make things up as they go.

He can’t say it is a different Respondent(s).

It is just wrong!
donarebun
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:10 pm

Re: Dormant Company

Postby atticus » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:41 pm

It's pretty much the same thing, whichever of those rules is used: he is saying that there was no valid ACAS early conciliation for this second claim.

Your only way forward may well be to appeal.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20642
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

PreviousNext

Return to Employment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests