SMC groundsmen gone

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Fez said:
Normally? Either party can ask for costs. No Win - No Pay?
Click to expand...

Historically within Employment Tribunal cases the loser does not pay the winners legal costs, unlike in most other forms of litigation.

Statistically in any Employment Tribunal there is therefore a 0.003% chance of getting a costs award made.

https://www.human-law.co.uk/_cmroot...osts-award-within-an-employment-tribunal.aspx

When the case was announced and I was planning a donation, I asked the solicitors what happened if the costs were awarded and they ended up getting much of the money back. They said they were working on the assumption that they wouldn't get the costs back, as cost awards in employment tribunals were rare, so donations should be made on that basis that there little chance of getting anything back.
 
originallambrettaman said:
The tribunal obviously don't have to consider Ehab's bent appeals process, as the SMC admitted it was wrong before the tribunal even started.

You seem very keen for them to get nothing.
Click to expand...

I'll try and make this simple.

I went through something similar when a family member was sacked by the Allams. Instead of getting emotional I looked at the contract of employment and whether the sacking was fair. It was difficult for me to do personally but that's what you have to do for an Employment Tribunal. In the end we didn't take it any further because we'd have lost. Sometimes life isn't fair.

I want them to win because they didn't get a fair crack of the whip. They have been treated appallingly. But...

The coalition government changed the rules to make it easier for employers like the Allams to sack people. The breach in the procedure is irrelevant in the eyes of the Tribunal. The only question they now have to answer is whether they should have been sacked. That will come down to whether working for Hull FC with the agreement of the supervisor is a sufficient breach of contract to warrant dismissal for both of them. I think the Tribunal will think it is. I may be wrong, I hope I am, but I don't think I am.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImperialTiger
Obadiah said:
I'll try and make this simple.

I went through something similar when a family member was sacked by the Allams. Instead of getting emotional I looked at the contract of employment and whether the sacking was fair. It was difficult for me to do personally but that's what you have to do for an Employment Tribunal. In the end we didn't take it any further because we'd have lost. Sometimes life isn't fair.

I want them to win because they didn't get a fair crack of the whip. They have been treated appallingly. But...

The coalition government changed the rules to make it easier for employers like the Allams to sack people. The breach in the procedure is irrelevant in the eyes of the Tribunal. The only question they now have to answer is whether they should have been sacked. That will come down to whether working for Hull FC with the agreement of the supervisor is a sufficient breach of contract to warrant dismissal for both of them. I think the Tribunal will think it is. I may be wrong, I hope I am, but I don't think I am.
Click to expand...

We'll know in a couple of hours.

I know you don't accept it, as you already said I was wrong earlier in the thread, but I think only Cook is in bother over whether he should have been working for FC, all the new evidence submitted on Monday related to him, I think the case against Harrison is so weak it should be dismissed and an award made.

Though personally, I think they've both been treated disgracefully and I hope they both get an award.
 
originallambrettaman said:
Historically within Employment Tribunal cases the loser does not pay the winners legal costs, unlike in most other forms of litigation.

Statistically in any Employment Tribunal there is therefore a 0.003% chance of getting a costs award made.

https://www.human-law.co.uk/_cmroot...osts-award-within-an-employment-tribunal.aspx

When the case was announced and I was planning a donation, I asked the solicitors what happened if the costs were awarded and they ended up getting much of the money back. They said they were working on the assumption that they wouldn't get the costs back, as cost awards in employment tribunals were rare, so donations should be made on that basis that there little chance of getting anything back.
Click to expand...

Another quote from your link:

Nevertheless as an experienced Employment lawyer, I have noticed an increasing trend for both lawyers(Claimants and Respondents) to issue costs threats against other parties.
Click to expand...

Another:

The law is that a tribunal may make a costs order against a party for either a sum not exceeding £20 000 or an amount determined by way of a detailed assessment in the county court.
Click to expand...

So costs do have to be decided (what I said); the result of that decision is not relevant to my observation.

My experience of such things is that a deal is more often 'done on the steps of the courthouse' and costs are taken into account; this prevents a lengthy and costly tribunal - but a tribunal, such as this one, will have a decision to make, regardless of its impact and size.
 
Fez said:
Another quote from your link:



Another:



So costs do have to be decided (what I said); the result of that decision is not relevant to my observation.

My experience of such things is that a deal is more often 'done on the steps of the courthouse' and costs are taken into account; this prevents a lengthy and costly tribunal - but a tribunal, such as this one, will have a decision to make, regardless of its impact and size.
Click to expand...

This is the legal position.

Costs awards in Employment Tribunals do not ‘follow the event’: a losing party will not automatically find themselves having to pay the other party’s costs of the litigation. However, the Tribunal has discretion to order costs where a party, or their representative, has acted “vexatiously, abusively, disruptively, or otherwise unreasonably” in the bringing or conducting of the proceedings, or the claim had “no reasonable prospect of success” (Rule 77 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013).

I don't think going to a Tribunal is unreasonable given they have already established they were unfairly dismissed. They haven't acted vexatiously, abusively or disruptively as far as I can tell.

Here's the link to the full article:

https://www.employmentlawwatch.com/...osts-in-tribunals-what-employers-should-know/
 
Fez said:
Oh... I thought you had the answers.

80% of this board is about speculation, well considered or not. The other 20% is dogmatic bullshit.
Click to expand...

****s up with you this morning?

You wanted to know what Angus meant in his post, so I've asked him, I can't ****ing answer until he does. <doh>
 
Obadiah said:
This is the legal position.

Costs awards in Employment Tribunals do not ‘follow the event’: a losing party will not automatically find themselves having to pay the other party’s costs of the litigation. However, the Tribunal has discretion to order costs where a party, or their representative, has acted “vexatiously, abusively, disruptively, or otherwise unreasonably” in the bringing or conducting of the proceedings, or the claim had “no reasonable prospect of success” (Rule 77 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013).

I don't think going to a Tribunal is unreasonable given they have already established they were unfairly dismissed. They haven't acted vexatiously, abusively or disruptively as far as I can tell.

Here's the link to the full article:

https://www.employmentlawwatch.com/...osts-in-tribunals-what-employers-should-know/
Click to expand...


In other words a decision (whatever that will be) has to be made by the tribunal. FACT
 
The SMC admitting that the dismissal procedure had been incorrect and only doing so a week ago might be a good reason to award the claimant some costs even if not compensation.

No doubt the claimants have spent a large sum of money on that part of the case which as it turned out was unnecessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: balkan tiger
Can we have a Tribunal Speculation thread please? Just so I know what not to read...:emoticon-0100-smile
 
Chilton's Hundreds said:
The SMC admitting that the dismissal procedure had been incorrect and only doing so a week ago might be a good reason to award the claimant some costs even if not compensation.

No doubt the claimants have spent a large sum of money on that part of the case which as it turned out was unnecessary.
Click to expand...

These are the criteria used to decide if costs should be awarded, there's a chance that your latter point could qualify...

· A claim is so weak it should never have been brought before a tribunal

· A claim has been brought before a tribunal for improper purposes. This includes cases where claims are made to deliberately harass an employer.

· One side has conducted their claim badly or unreasonably.
 
originallambrettaman said:
****s up with you this morning?

You wanted to know what Angus meant in his post, so I've asked him, I can't ****ing answer until he does. <doh>
Click to expand...

I didn't want to know from him, as I had read his tweet and made taken my own understanding from it and that was being questioned by Obi.

originallambrettaman said:
Here you go, this is what he thought was 'tough viewing'...

angus young‏ @angus_young61
Experienced employment barrister tackling groundsman on points of employment law.
Click to expand...

So much as I thought then...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back