breach of compromise agreement by employer.

ohreally

SarEl wrote: »

I wasn't ignoring your advice

I appreciate you weren't.

Others don't want to hear the obvious - hence i digressed.


OP - who commissioned the original solicitor?

Milkshock

---

Milkshock

---

LadyMissA

SarEl wrote: »

If you want to know what it is - look it up.

I was being sarcastic, you however are just patronising and not very nice.

It's all well and good knowing what negligent misstatements are but how wold you know someone has given such a statement or even if you did prove it's wrong.

ohreally

Milkshock wrote: »

it was via a union.

Right, are you averse to picking the phone up tomorrow and making the call - this is the means to finding a resolution.

Milkshock

---

SarEl

I am going to say it again - not my area of specialism! But it does not invalidate an agreed reference - they provided it as per the terms. It does not invalidate it unless they lied in the agreed reference. They "ommitted" - yes? Any reference can be followed up - agreed or not. But your agreement does not stipulate that they should not add anything - that is the problem. It isn't that I disagree with you in principle - but the law is a funny beast and likes to be specific. Which is why every agreement I authorise contains that particular specific. And it is a standard clause. It isn't anything that I don't see in thousands of the things. I am with Uncertain - I think your solicitor screwed up. But good luck chasing that one - I know how often such things win. You have more chance against the employer.

I would, however, revise my opinion on going back to them - try another one and I would suggest one in another town - they all know each other and solicitors don't like criticisng other solicitors even if they are wrong. They definitely don't much like suing them!

SarEl

LadyMissA wrote: »

I was being sarcastic, you however are just patronising and not very nice.

It's all well and good knowing what negligent misstatements are but how wold you know someone has given such a statement or even if you did prove it's wrong.

Really - it's difficult to tell the difference between your sarcasm and your opinions.

And why on earth would I want to teach you law - I am supposed to be patronising and not very nice. Not that your opinions bother me - they are prone to be wrong on most occasions.

Milkshock

---

Uncertain

OK - I am going to say something here that SarEl can't!!

Had your compromise agreement been properly worded you could in all probability have got away with lying. The prospective employer would not have been able to find out about the previous disciplinary issues!! (Note: That is a practical and not a moral comment)!

Now, what is the solicitor going to say. "We advised the client that some of the terms were less than ideal but the client was unwilling to pay for us to spend time attempting to negotiate a better agreement".

That may even be true but if not you will have a devil of a job proving it is not. Generally an employer pays a set amount towards an employee's legal costs in a CA. This is a double edged sword. It is normally just enough for the solicitor to do the absolute minimum the law requires i.e advise the employee on the terms of the offered agreement. It seldom if ever pays for the solicitor to argue on the employee's behalf. If you want this you normally have to pay for it but it may be money well spent.