Page 2 of 2

Re: Dormant Company

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:39 pm
by dls
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.

Re: Dormant Company

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:12 pm
by donarebun
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?

Re: Dormant Company

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:18 pm
by dls
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.

Re: Dormant Company

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:28 pm
by donarebun
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!

Re: Dormant Company

PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:24 pm
by atticus
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?

Re: Dormant Company

PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:42 pm
by donarebun
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.