Small court claim - can we contest once judgement is in?

EagerLearner · 18 October 2016 at 9:19AM

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

I am assisting someone who was taken to court, in a nutshell, over placement of an employee who *had* initially liaised with an agency but he specifically did not want them to place him in the position as he found the agency unsatisfactory and wanted no further work from them.

He was hired only on the proviso that it was his decision to do this and that he applied directly to a subsequent advert. Maybe the company were naive? He must have then told the agency this because they then sent a flurry of emails, the company defended the employee position and theirs which was to refuse payment of the fees suggested. In weirder developments, he was not great once hired and as such only worked a few days.

The agency took the company to court over their viewed 'fee' (very high) and although this was defended by the company, it would seem the defense paperwork never arrived at the court (and the person handling it was lax on admin so never chased/checked court info), and so the company was not aware of this until too late and judgement was already made against them by default.

They have immediately paid the fee (several thousands), and requested proof that it is no longer on their record.

Question is, what can they do now? They never got the chance to defend themselves due to an admin error, and possibly, they would have not won anyway? Any thoughts gratefully received.

zaax · 18 October 2016 at 9:28AM

This is contract law, we need to see the contract. Though I suspect the co would have lost. Is it worth spending good money after bad?

EagerLearner · 18 October 2016 at 9:35AM

Hi do you mean the contract between the company and the employee? It would not refer to the agency as was direct.
There was no contract with the agency...
I agree re good money after bad, just tending to think that if they had no chance of defence, would then get a belated one after paying up?

Stevie_Palimo · 18 October 2016 at 9:35AM

For the UK mainland they have paid it now and the CCJ drops off within a month I believe, Check with the Court in question as they may require proof, Look on the register of judgements for this.

By rights they should have asked the Court to set it aside via an application notice n244 at roughly £250.00 or so and due to now paying the ccj after the hearing would probably need to take this to the next level, That may require a high court as the claim was issued but I am unsure on that point but believe that is the only way.

EagerLearner · 18 October 2016 at 9:55AM

Thanks Stevie, payment & request for proof of removal from register had already been sent off, so will keep an eye on that.
I think they just panicked as they're a small company and didn't want bad credit re judgement, hindsight is a wonderful thing... with luck they won't be in this situation again.
So high court may be their only choice now?
I am worried as to how this works with agencies, do they have the right to do this if the individual chose to not work with them anymore?
This is so much harder given he did not live up to all the hype and isn't there to help be a witness or anything...

Stevie_Palimo · 18 October 2016 at 10:00AM

The agency may have just used bullying tactics and if the Company in question is 100% sure they did nothing wrong then I would take it further and seek to have this situation resolved, Nobody likes to pay out for things that they should not be liable for and in my view a lot of agencies are quite aggressive in there approach when things do not go there way.

For the sake of a meeting here with a solicitor that they could see for a 30-60 minute meeting the ccj and money taken may get repaid but will be at a further expense, I would only suggest considering this route if they 100% believe that they do not owe anything and never have done.

paddyrg · 18 October 2016 at 10:03AM

Company originally engaged an agency, I assume? That's the only contract that matters. What the employee did with the agency is irrelevant.

EagerLearner · 18 October 2016 at 10:10AM

Thanks Paddyrg and Stevie.
Yes they did originally want to use that agency, but once they heard from the person in question, they stopped working with them. As I understand it he later applied to another job listing and categorically did not want to work with that agency anymore. The agency were very firm on emails, and I feel only got the upper hand here because of lack of admin follow up.
I am sure many companies will have a go at saving fees, but in this instance, I think they were naive not knowing a) enough about the guy & believing how good he was and b) trusting that they could work directly with him based on him 'not wanting' to be with the agency.

Paddy I am unsure what contract would have been signed if any, *if* they did, would that not be null if the prospective employee no longer wanted to work with them?

EagerLearner · 18 October 2016 at 10:36AM

I should add also, that the original role they referred him for was filled, due to them not getting messages to him in time/arranging interview dates properly etc. This is why he no longer wanted to work with them, and so subsequently applied direct several weeks later for a quite different job.

unforeseen · 18 October 2016 at 10:46AM

It is normal in agency contracts that a fee is payable if somebody introduced by them subsequently gets recruited directly by the company.

This appears to be what the agency have invoked

EagerLearner · 18 October 2016 at 11:24AM

Thanks unforeseen, I guess what they need to establish now is that due to poor agency performance the person made it clear they no longer wished to go through them, they have his emails stating this. As such he lost his chance at the original job, but yes by then he knew who the company were.

Small court claim - can we contest once judgement is in?

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free