Admission of guilt/wrong doing; is it accepted in court

dj_factor

Hello All;
I have got a question for a friend who I’m helping out in his case. Basically he was offered redundancy along with his team members last year and were all told to reapply for their job roles. Apparently the remaining members of the team didn’t apply and they got reallocated to various departments; where as my friend applied for the job and he was turned down stating his sick record due to diabetes and mental health issues as his sickness record for past 6 years. However he took his employers to court and we had the preliminary hearing which the judge accepted to be taken forward into a 5 day hearing. Now the defendants solicitor contacted my friend directly stating that his redeployment/selection process was wrong and they unfair and they would offer him a funny sum of £5000 to settle the case.

My question here is - if the defendants solicitor accepts this unfair process in email writing; can this be accepted in court if we decide to go for the original 5 day hearing. Thanks

Xbigman

No.

It's simply the employers solicitors opinion that they may be in the wrong so they have made an offer. It means nothing in court as only the tribunal/judge can make a determination of guilt.




Darren

dj_factor

Ohh ok, so if the defendants solicitor is accepting their mistake, we can’t provide it in court as evidence of their admission then

TELLIT01

For something as important to your friend's employment future he should be speaking to a specialist legal firm, not getting you to ask questions on a site where you will get mostly personal opinion, not legal advice.

dj_factor

Thanks guys

Exodi

Hi dj_factor,

You touch upon a common question. There is a rule called 'Without Prejudice' that (and I'll quote from Thomson Reuter):

Thomson_Reuters_Practical_Law wrote:

will generally prevent statements made in a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute, whether made in writing or orally, from being put before the court as evidence of admissions against the interest of the party which made them. One reason for having the WP rule is the public policy of encouraging parties (or potential parties) to litigation to settle their disputes out of court. The rationale is that settlement discussions (and, it is hoped, settlement itself) will be facilitated if parties are able to speak freely, secure in the knowledge that what they have said and, in particular, any admissions which they might have made to try to settle the matter, may not be used against them should the settlement discussions fail. The inclusion of the words "without prejudice" will not necessarily bring the communication within the ambit of WP privilege if it is not, in substance, a communication made in a genuine attempt to settle an existing dispute.

As has been said, if it wasn't for an instrument like this, things would never get settled outside court otherwise every settlement offer would result in the opposing party running to the judge shouting "look what he just offered me! Guilty or what!"

If this has been done under the WP rule (as I imagine it would have) you can not use it against them in court.

dj_factor

Exodi- I salute you sir, your absolutely right. The email starts with a “without prejudice As to save costs”

On the other hand, the judge did tell the defendants solicitor at the preliminary hearing that he lied and it is sufficient evidence to his lies in the claimants bundle and etc. The judge threw out the defendants demand to secure a deposit for the claim so on. In a short gesture what I mean is that my friend in question here knows that he will win the case. It’s never been an issue of money to him but it was the issue of principle that over a period of 1 year how his work place who look after the vulnerable people were misusing the public funds and when he bought this into attention to the ceo and top managers, he was subjected to a redundancy within 1 year, infact the whole of his team and when he applied he was turned down and the others who never applied for a job role where all given new job roles.

polgara

dj_factor wrote: »

Exodi- I salute you sir, your absolutely right. The email starts with a “without prejudice As to save costs”

On the other hand, the judge did tell the defendants solicitor at the preliminary hearing that he lied and it is sufficient evidence to his lies in the claimants bundle and etc. The judge threw out the defendants demand to secure a deposit for the claim so on. In a short gesture what I mean is that my friend in question here knows that he will win the case. It’s never been an issue of money to him but it was the issue of principle that over a period of 1 year how his work place who look after the vulnerable people were misusing the public funds and when he bought this into attention to the ceo and top managers, he was subjected to a redundancy within 1 year, infact the whole of his team and when he applied he was turned down and the others who never applied for a job role where all given new job roles.

There will be a different judge at the full hearing and the solicitors (if they are any good) will have modified their defence following the preliminary hearing. Its not unusual for requests for deposits to be refused - don't take it that as evidence you will win.


If he wins he might get more than £5000 or he might not - if he wants his day(s) in court then he should proceed however principles are a poor reason for an employment tribunal.


Case in point we had an ex employee who wanted their day in court - cue a full day on the stand and a judge who, very politely, tore them to strips in the judgement.


My view, from an employee standpoint, would always be to try and avoid a tribunal if at all possible and negotiate the best settlement as possible.

Exodi

dj_factor wrote: »

Exodi- I salute you sir, your absolutely right. The email starts with a “without prejudice As to save costs”

On the other hand, the judge did tell the defendants solicitor at the preliminary hearing that he lied and it is sufficient evidence to his lies in the claimants bundle and etc. The judge threw out the defendants demand to secure a deposit for the claim so on. In a short gesture what I mean is that my friend in question here knows that he will win the case. It’s never been an issue of money to him but it was the issue of principle that over a period of 1 year how his work place who look after the vulnerable people were misusing the public funds and when he bought this into attention to the ceo and top managers, he was subjected to a redundancy within 1 year, infact the whole of his team and when he applied he was turned down and the others who never applied for a job role where all given new job roles.

I wouldn't overstate the certainty of a favourable ruling; your friend is being presumptuous.

He also now needs to move away from 'the principle' as this matter will be settled financially. He can make a counter offer to the £5,000 if he so chooses but I think charging ahead to a tribunal should be fully thought through.

polgara wrote:

My view, from an employee standpoint, would always be to try and avoid a tribunal if at all possible and negotiate the best settlement as possible.

I echo this view.

newwave19

you will probably find that the employers solicitor didn't admit wrong doing, and any settlement would most likely have this in the agreement. Sometimes employers will weigh up the options of making an offer, to how much negative impact media coverage would have on them. and some people will take the guaranteed payment instead of taking a risk.

dj_factor

Thanks for your replying, I’m forwarding him all the relevant reply’s so that he knows what he has for the future