**termination with no notice - breach of contract**court case *help needed*

[TheFaQQer]

It is'nt small claims - so I'll be claiming costs, lost revenue, time spent on the case etc

I've submitted invoices to the Agency for the notice & the remaining weeks on the contract .. thought I might as well...

Either you have more money than sense to take this case to a court where the judge can award costs, or there is no case and you're trolling for a response.

Since you didn't even have a solicitor at the start of the thread, I'm going to go with the second of those options.

[Mister Clark]

It is'nt small claims - so I'll be claiming costs, lost revenue, time spent on the case etc

I've submitted invoices to the Agency for the notice & the remaining weeks on the contract .. thought I might as well...

Did you not think of doing that before taking them to court?

[prozak]

It is'nt small claims - so I'll be claiming costs, lost revenue, time spent on the case etc

I've submitted invoices to the Agency for the notice & the remaining weeks on the contract .. thought I might as well...

If you reallly are doing this because of the principal and believe it is important for contractors.... Have you spoken to the PCG?

They claim they like to help (sure i've read it somewhere) in cases that are important.

[prozak]

I'll give you a 0% chance of you getting any costs for lost revenue due to time spent on the case.

[psychocandy]

Either you have more money than sense to take this case to a court where the judge can award costs, or there is no case and you're trolling for a response.

Since you didn't even have a solicitor at the start of the thread, I'm going to go with the second of those options.

So Kitty what happens if you lose? Surely you'll end up facing a possibly humongous fee for the costs.....

[Spacecadet]

So Kitty what happens if you lose? Surely you'll end up facing a possibly humongous fee for the costs.....

I think her plan was to empty the company's accounts before going to court.
Losing the case means closing the company.

[TheFaQQer]

I think her plan was to empty the company's accounts before going to court.
Losing the case means closing the company.

Yep - the grand master plan, in the quest for justice is to empty the company so that when if KC loses and costs are awarded, then there is nothing to pay:

20k roughly is my claim so far - I will not lose anything as if any costs are awarded against my company there will be no money in the company, I will make it very clear in court that if it goes against me there is no hope for small business & I'm done! It will be the judge's decision to prop up fat cat unethical & illegal practices & destroy a small business & they should look at the wider implications of how some agencies are gaining a competitive advantage by acting illegally ... whatever happens I will broadcast as I think it is important for small business

I said WILL have no money - cos I'll take the whole lot out before! read!!! duh

Is that legal?

Where will you move it

ha ha - yes - it will be moved to the KittyCat shopping & holiday fund

[centurian]

I wonder if Kitty is aware that if a director cleans out the accounts, even though legitimate methods such as dividends, salary etc, the debts can be transferred to the director personally if it can be shown it was done to avoid paying up. Does it happen often, no. But if the agency are as rabid about it in pursuing it as she has been...

Also doesn't that smack of gross hypocracy. She accuses the agency of being unfair and putting the strict letter of the law above the spirit of the agreement - yet she's deftly proud that she's prepared to do the same thing in terms of avoiding costs.

Finally, she had better not try for a gig in banking, insurance, finance, defence, or anywhere else where they do background checks. Being director of a bankrupt firm will show up for at least 6 years and would be an absolute red flag for most of these places.

[TheFaQQer]

I wonder if Kitty is aware that if a director cleans out the accounts, even though legitimate methods such as dividends, salary etc, the debts can be transferred to the director personally if it can be shown it was done to avoid paying up. Does it happen often, no. But if the agency are as rabid about it in pursuing it as she has been...

I believe that point has been made:

If a director doesn't act in the interests of the company (and deliberately running down the funds to avoid payment that you know is looming), then they can come after that negligent director.

Also, don't you run the risk of being struck off as a director if your business goes bankrupt?

--

Also doesn't that smack of gross hypocracy. She accuses the agency of being unfair and putting the strict letter of the law above the spirit of the agreement - yet she's deftly proud that she's prepared to do the same thing in terms of avoiding costs.

And that one:

So let's get this straight. In the interests of pursuing a case for damages on the basis that you have been treated unfairly, ILLEGALLY (your empahsis) and fraudulently, you intend asset stripping your company and concealing the resultant personal income so that if you lose the case the defendants will have no comeback against you for their losses. Whereas if you win - which given the random nature of our legal system is still a faint possibility - you will be claiming money for work that was never done, plus damages, plus the costs of taking this vexatious action to court.

Given that you also claim that you now work in an environment that does investigate / prosecute malpractice ", can you not see why some among are unclear as to either your motives or your credibility.

--

I'm sure she knows what she's doing, though. I just want the case reference once the judgement comes out.

[ASB]

Finally, she had better not try for a gig in banking, insurance, finance, defence, or anywhere else where they do background checks. Being director of a bankrupt firm will show up for at least 6 years and would be an absolute red flag for most of these places.

Ignoring the bankruptcy thing the whole credit check type issue irks me a bit. It seems to play into the hands of people being awkward and the other side possibly being able to launch vexatious claims in the hope the consequences of even being involved in a dispute can have negative connotations for somebody who needs to be squeaky clean.

A friend of mine years ago got into a perfectly legitimate dispute. I can't remember what it was about though it was something to do with a rental agreement. Anyway it ended up in court and the other side got partial settlement. My mate coughed up and put it down to experience. He accepted that his view wasn't shared by the court.

He worked in finance, this judgement caused him some problems a while later. This seems a bit unreasonable, almost as if he was being penalised for daring to be in a dispute.