Unsure if I have a case for a grievance or constructive dismissal. Please help!

Mersey_2

sangie595 wrote: »

The OP can listen to any advice and decide for themselves.

I quite agree.


At least that's a grudging improvement from you earlier stance of, "almost nothing you have said will ever make a case" - which I'm sure in retrospect even you can see how unduly dismissive this is of an OP (to suggest they shouldn't even investigate the possibility further).




[Incidentally, this is actually the second occasion you have posted to an OP - then denied saying what you did even after being corrected on both the current legal position and showing you your quotation. I let it go last time, as you seemed to take my pointing this out as some sort of personal affront with an emotional, sarcastic response. In response to that - no I'm not suggesting you should tell all OPs they have a potential claim - that would be equally as wrong as what you have been doing in telling them not to bother. All OPs may not be as robust as ourselves. I respect your experience from years ago, but, remember caselaw can change month by month, so it's always best OPs take current advice from a lawyer not on this site and then deciding what action they should take. If someone happens to point out a potential avenue of redress based on a recent decision, don't take it personally. There'll always be two sides in our adversarial system - both pre-lit and issued matters in Court. I realise many do; but, if we all took every case so personally, I suspect there'd be heart attacks in every County Court, daily. Hardly any matter will ever be 100% one way or the other. Whilst I don't expect you to take any notice of my plea, it is this: just re-read your posts before posting and think how they might sound to an OP]

sangie595

Mersey wrote: »

I quite agree.


At least that's a grudging improvement from you earlier stance of, "almost nothing you have said will ever make a case" - which I'm sure in retrospect even you can see how unduly dismissive this is of an OP (to suggest they shouldn't even investigate the possibility further).

I did no such thing. I told them what they needed to find out in order to consider if a case could be made. Right from the start. You are clearly simply trying to go out of your way to pick a fight and will say and do anything to do so, including arguing that Mauritian employment law applies in the UK.. I will not be answering you again. I suspect that if the OP has any sense they will work out for themselves which advice is more accurate.

Manxman_in_exile

Sorry to butt in - Mersey, are you sure the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council "practises English Law" as you say in post#5?


I'm from a Crown Dependancy and I thought their decisions had to be based on the law of the jurisdiction that the case originated from. It's decisions may be "persuasive" (ie helpful to a court) in interpreting or applying general points of law, but only insofar as those general principles applied to English Law. They're not necessarily binding.


If the Privy council had an employment case referred to it from the Isle of Man (or say Sark) would the decision impact on UK law?

sangie595

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I'm from a Crown Dependancy and I thought their decisions had to be based on the law of the jurisdiction that the case originated from. It's decisions may be "persuasive" (ie helpful to a court) in interpreting or applying general points of law, but only insofar as those general principles applied to English Law. They're not necessarily binding.

So, apparently, do most other people. Including lawyers. One of the duties they perform is the final appeal from capital cases in some former colonies. It would be quite disturbing if they could reintroduce hanging simply because some other country has it! Hence, the employment law of Mauritius doesn't really work for a case in the UK.

Mersey_2

sangie595 wrote: »

I did no such thing.


I will not be answering you again.

Your: "almost nothing you have said will ever make a case" to the OP, is there for all to see, even though you have now denied saying so on three separate occasions. That's exactly why you took umbrage and fulminated the last time I merely quoted you.


Glad to hear it, although you promised that earlier too.

Mersey_2

Manxman - yes, essentially. All are English legal systems. Although, you're right in that the practice of the local jurisdiction is always now respected since the Commonwealth rather than the Empire. Eg in Gibraltar the system is fused in terms of rights of audience (advocacy rights) compared to our solicitor > barrister system. There's no such thing as UK-wide law, as you'll be aware, as Scottish law has its open judicial and advocacy rules and caseload, as does N Ireland.


Tribunal chairmen in both the First Tier SS and Employment Ts and Judges in the Upper Tribunal and E Appeal T cite cases from decisions of higher courts which are binding or persuasive when considering novel points of law. I've even known them refer to American cases on a couple of occasions (but clearly the Supreme Court, EAT, Australian will usually be the decisions referenced when a majority decision is published.) There's nothing odd about a Commonwealth citizen's matter being cited. They don't, of course, cite eg Swiss/French/German domestic cases as both their legal systems are totally different to English law, in relation to both our adversarial system v their inquisitorial one and our caselaw has developed over centuries compared with their young countries' 'rights-based' systems.


It wasn't a controversial point I was making - sangie just seemed obsessed with where the claimant in the matter originated.


No doubt the Supreme Court's rulings re the employment rights of Americans on their airbase in England would interest him. [Although to be fair, the USA failed to cite State immunity in time in that matter]