Help urgently needed LEGAL

DullGreyGuy

Undervalued said:

DullGreyGuy said:

theoretica said:

To get anywhere in court your employer would need to be able to prove that you were doing things that were illegal or against your contract - can they? If you haven't done anything they would have a hard time.  I don't need to prove I wasn't shoplifting yesterday...

Almost every point in that is wrong...

The employer would be dealing with matters under civil law for which anyone can take anyone to court... it can be totally spurious. Now if the CPR hasnt been followed or if it is spurious, frivolous or vexatious then the judge has a high level of discretion to make the claimant pay the defendants costs even if normally excluded because of which track its been allocated to.

Shoplifting is a criminal charge which is judged by a totally different process, the CPS who bring prosecutions have several tests they must pass and the hurdle rate is "beyond reasonable doubt". For civil law the hurdle is "on the balance of probability" and so if you decide not to file a defense as you recommend then the judge simply has to decide if the claimants claims are more likely than not to have happened (ie are they plausable at all). In fact if you didnt enter a defence then it wouldnt matter because the system would automatically rule against you.


The crux of the matter appears to be they are claiming the OP is breaching terms about poaching clients, the OP claims they have evidence they havent. There is far too little information in the post to substantiate if there is any possibility of anything sticking... have clients followed the OP but they're claiming they've done it off their own back? Have no clients followed them? Has the OP been contacting former clients? 

Indeed and just to add, somebody could be acquitted of the criminal charge of shoplifting yet still held liable in a civil court for the value of the goods. Effectively the criminal court has to be 95% sure whereas the civil court only has to be 51% sure. 

Beyond reasonable doubt is also known as the 99% rule so even higher than 95%... in a 1780s case a judge explained it to the jury as "the Juryman who finds any other person guilty, is liable to the Vengeance of God upon his Family and Trade, Body and Soul, in this world and that to come"

JReacher1

There isn’t enough details to really help but if you do now have clients that previously were at your old company then I think you’re potentially in a bit of trouble. Not sure how you can prove you didn’t poach people who three weeks ago were clients at your previous company.  It seems suspicious. 

Bobbobbobingalong

Undervalued said:

DullGreyGuy said:

theoretica said:

To get anywhere in court your employer would need to be able to prove that you were doing things that were illegal or against your contract - can they? If you haven't done anything they would have a hard time.  I don't need to prove I wasn't shoplifting yesterday...

Almost every point in that is wrong...

The employer would be dealing with matters under civil law for which anyone can take anyone to court... it can be totally spurious. Now if the CPR hasnt been followed or if it is spurious, frivolous or vexatious then the judge has a high level of discretion to make the claimant pay the defendants costs even if normally excluded because of which track its been allocated to.

Shoplifting is a criminal charge which is judged by a totally different process, the CPS who bring prosecutions have several tests they must pass and the hurdle rate is "beyond reasonable doubt". For civil law the hurdle is "on the balance of probability" and so if you decide not to file a defense as you recommend then the judge simply has to decide if the claimants claims are more likely than not to have happened (ie are they plausable at all). In fact if you didnt enter a defence then it wouldnt matter because the system would automatically rule against you.


The crux of the matter appears to be they are claiming the OP is breaching terms about poaching clients, the OP claims they have evidence they havent. There is far too little information in the post to substantiate if there is any possibility of anything sticking... have clients followed the OP but they're claiming they've done it off their own back? Have no clients followed them? Has the OP been contacting former clients? 

Indeed and just to add, somebody could be acquitted of the criminal charge of shoplifting yet still held liable in a civil court for the value of the goods. Effectively the criminal court has to be 95% sure whereas the civil court only has to be 51% sure. 

Meanwhile, in the real world, there are no actual percentage figures to evaluate the required standard of the burden of proof and attaching a figure of 95% is misleading. The actual requirement is that in a criminal case a jury or magistrates must be certain so that they are sure - this effectively describes what is commonly known as beyond a reasonable doubt.

The standard in civil cases is that the court must find the event in question is more likely than not to have happened, which of course is where the 51% figure comes from, in other words, on the balance of probabilities.

Undervalued

Bobbobbobingalong said:

Undervalued said:

DullGreyGuy said:

theoretica said:

To get anywhere in court your employer would need to be able to prove that you were doing things that were illegal or against your contract - can they? If you haven't done anything they would have a hard time.  I don't need to prove I wasn't shoplifting yesterday...

Almost every point in that is wrong...

The employer would be dealing with matters under civil law for which anyone can take anyone to court... it can be totally spurious. Now if the CPR hasnt been followed or if it is spurious, frivolous or vexatious then the judge has a high level of discretion to make the claimant pay the defendants costs even if normally excluded because of which track its been allocated to.

Shoplifting is a criminal charge which is judged by a totally different process, the CPS who bring prosecutions have several tests they must pass and the hurdle rate is "beyond reasonable doubt". For civil law the hurdle is "on the balance of probability" and so if you decide not to file a defense as you recommend then the judge simply has to decide if the claimants claims are more likely than not to have happened (ie are they plausable at all). In fact if you didnt enter a defence then it wouldnt matter because the system would automatically rule against you.


The crux of the matter appears to be they are claiming the OP is breaching terms about poaching clients, the OP claims they have evidence they havent. There is far too little information in the post to substantiate if there is any possibility of anything sticking... have clients followed the OP but they're claiming they've done it off their own back? Have no clients followed them? Has the OP been contacting former clients? 

Indeed and just to add, somebody could be acquitted of the criminal charge of shoplifting yet still held liable in a civil court for the value of the goods. Effectively the criminal court has to be 95% sure whereas the civil court only has to be 51% sure. 

Meanwhile, in the real world, there are no actual percentage figures to evaluate the required standard of the burden of proof and attaching a figure of 95% is misleading. The actual requirement is that in a criminal case a jury or magistrates must be certain so that they are sure - this effectively describes what is commonly known as beyond a reasonable doubt.

The standard in civil cases is that the court must find the event in question is more likely than not to have happened, which of course is where the 51% figure comes from, in other words, on the balance of probabilities.

Which is precisely why I said "effectively" as I was only trying to illustrate the significant difference and not suggesting an exact figure!