Self-employed consultant claiming wrongful dismissal!

PlutoinCapricorn

I hope that karmic retribution will see that she gets what she deserves.

ami66

PHILANTHROPIST wrote: »

That is quite some allegation ami.

Do you, or the deceased's next of kin, have robust evidence to support such an allegation ? If so, best to inform the police rather than this forum.

We can only really comment on the employment law aspects of the claim. I guess your firm will have been advised that the claim made by the ex colleague had reasonable to good prospects of success. If it had low prospects then they may have preferred to seek to successfully defend the claim. Decision to settle may have been a mere commercial decision, but if what you allege were even partly true then, even if only on principle, a respondent would surely have sought to defend the claim and have it dismissed.

I'm not sure what you mean by making an allegation that needs to be given to the police.

Firm has been advised she has a low chance of winning but how can you defend allegation about a dead man? She's named the director in the tribunal claims not the company.

I can understand the CEO just wanting it dealt with swiftly so less distress for the family of the director especially as she's started talking about making a 'sexual' allegation against him.

Undervalued

notanewuser wrote: »

Because it's HMRC who decide whether an individual is self employed or not.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employment-status/#1

Only for tax purposes.

It is perfectly possible, although unusual, for an Employment Tribunal to take a different view. It has happened and neither's decision is binding on the other.

PHILANTHROPIST

ami66 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by making an allegation that needs to be given to the police.

Firm has been advised she has a low chance of winning but how can you defend allegation about a dead man? She's named the director in the tribunal claims not the company.

I can understand the CEO just wanting it dealt with swiftly so less distress for the family of the director especially as she's started talking about making a 'sexual' allegation against him.

Apologies for any possible confusion ami. Let me clarify.

I was simply saying that it was surprising to read an allegation or even an inference that the claimant (she) somehow played a role in the death of the "director" ; I quote your words ... "... the director she was personally targeting has died very very suddenly as a very young age." You now say that .... " she's started talking about making a 'sexual' allegation against him. "

Targeting a person, or persons, over a period of time may have amounted to harassment. The civil courts and the police have remedies for such behaviour ... that's if there were any evidence thereof.

If I were you, you may wish to move on. Unfortunately, life isn't always fair.

ami66

Thought I may as well update :

Said 'person' continued to pursue a claim of discrimination on the basis of her disability. She was able to prove she was diagnosed with ME in 2009. this was 3 years before the current company bought the company she was contracted by.

There was nothing in the Due Diligence documents at the time of sale re her disability and she didn't inform the new company. Apparently no knowledge of her disability isn't a defence.

She agreed to an out of court settlement but the company couldn't justify the higher amount she wanted so she will continue to sue the estate of the dead director.

And now karma steps in as she won't get a penny as the company has just declared insolvency I may not have a job but as I and the directors said the silver lining in this is she won't get her money :T

Undervalued

ami66 wrote: »

Thought I may as well update :

Said 'person' continued to pursue a claim of discrimination on the basis of her disability. She was able to prove she was diagnosed with ME in 2009. this was 3 years before the current company bought the company she was contracted by.

There was nothing in the Due Diligence documents at the time of sale re her disability and she didn't inform the new company. Apparently no knowledge of her disability isn't a defence.

She agreed to an out of court settlement but the company couldn't justify the higher amount she wanted so she will continue to sue the estate of the dead director.

And now karma steps in as she won't get a penny as the company has just declared insolvency I may not have a job but as I and the directors said the silver lining in this is she won't get her money :T

Your (former) employer may well have run into a very nasty and determined individual which, although unfortunate, does happen.

However the paragraph I have highlighted in red (and indeed comments in many of your other posts) do show a lack of understanding of basic legal principles.

You have described a desire on the part of the firm to win at all costs which only changed to an offer to settle at the eleventh hour. These sort of righteous stands can prove very costly indeed both in terms of money and wasted energy. There are two sides to every story and even if the bulk of the "right" was on your side it is often better to settle and move on.

I do hope this was not a significant factor in bringing the company down? If it was, then it would appear to be a case of cutting off their nose to spite their face!