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

[KittyCat]

Your misinterpreting - I said the Agency cannot hold onto monies that was intended for the contractor i.e. so if the client paid the agency the 4 weeks notice then the agency have a duty to pay that to me .. & like I said they are refusing to even CONFIRM that they were not paid the notice

..I'll be getting lots of therapy when I win my case .. retail therapy .. while I'm on a long exotic holiday

[malvolio]

Your misinterpreting - I said the Agency cannot hold onto monies that was intended for the contractor i.e. so if the client paid the agency the 4 weeks notice then the agency have a duty to pay that to me .. & like I said they are refusing to even CONFIRM that they were not paid the notice

..I'll be getting lots of therapy when I win my case .. retail therapy .. while I'm on a long exotic holiday

Actually you are perfectly correct. That is indeed the case.

The only minor detail is that the client will not have paid four week's money in lieu of notice to the agency, since they haven't given you or the agency any notice in the first place. Can't begin to imagine why they would want to terminate you instantly, but sh!t happens.

But hey, apart from that, your case is unbeatable so you're bound to win.

[TheFaQQer]

When's the court case? Where is it?

I'm sure that there are a few benched contractors who this has happened to who would be glad to lend their vocal support. Just give us the time, date and location and we'll be there!

[KittyCat]

Actually you are perfectly correct. That is indeed the case.

The only minor detail is that the client will not have paid four week's money in lieu of notice to the agency, since they haven't given you or the agency any notice in the first place. Can't begin to imagine why they would want to terminate you instantly, but sh!t happens.

But hey, apart from that, your case is unbeatable so you're bound to win.

where have you established that the agency were not given notice or payment in lieu of notice!!!! i.e. thats one of the whole points of the case - the Agency are REFUSING to confirm/deny whether they did or did not and said I must not contact the client - THAT is why it is going to court - bloody hell sounds like your agency could tell you little green men stole all their money & they cant pay you & your response would be 'ok thats fine I'll go away then'

[SueEllen]

where have you established that the agency were not given notice or payment in lieu of notice!!!! i.e. thats one of the whole points of the case - the Agency are REFUSING to confirm/deny whether they did or did not and said I must not contact the client - THAT is why it is going to court - bloody hell sounds like your agency could tell you little green men stole all their money & they cant pay you & your response would be 'ok thats fine I'll go away then'

You would be funny if you weren't so rude to people.

I suggest you have a look at a few of the posters' backgrounds before being so damn rude.

[d000hg]

What NL said.

You may have a notice period in your contract, but unless you're WAAAAAY inside IR35, there will also be a clause not obliging the client to give you any work and you not being obliged to take any, which makes notice each way moot.

Sorry but if that is your attitude you really need to be permie.

IMO forget it and move on.

B2B contracts can and do have proper notice periods, so the client can plan for service ending and the supplier can plan team utilisation.
If we're going to pretend a contractor is a proper business, we need to stop all this "no rights" and "permie" and "IR35" talk.

[TheFaQQer]

where have you established that the agency were not given notice or payment in lieu of notice!!!! i.e. thats one of the whole points of the case - the Agency are REFUSING to confirm/deny whether they did or did not and said I must not contact the client - THAT is why it is going to court - bloody hell sounds like your agency could tell you little green men stole all their money & they cant pay you & your response would be 'ok thats fine I'll go away then'

If the agency are REFUSING to confirm/deny whether they were given payment in lieu of notice (your words, not mine), purely from a legal point of view, I'd wonder where your evidence is that the agency has taken any money from the client.

Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit and all that.

[craig1]

B2B contracts can and do have proper notice periods, so the client can plan for service ending and the supplier can plan team utilisation.
If we're going to pretend a contractor is a proper business, we need to stop all this "no rights" and "permie" and "IR35" talk.

You're 100% right there but there are very few of us who have contractor contracts (essentially sub-contracted pieces of work from agencies) that don't have either some route of instant termination or right of withdrawal of work with resulting withdrawal of day rate. I factor that into my day-rate expectations and if I get fully-paid notice then I'm chuffed as it's unexpected money.

I do about 50/50 contracting/consultancy (well... over the last two years it's been more 75/25) and my consultancy standard contracts have fixed penalty terms equating to one week of notice at full day rate for both sides meaning that, once we agree the statement of work, I expect to complete it and get paid for it or at least get one week of notice, it also gives the client a stick to beat me with if I walk off site. Very few clients refuse to sign that or try to negotiate it out. I especially like it as it helps to focus the attention of the client in getting the statement of work right before we sign the full consultancy agreement!

[malvolio]

where have you established that the agency were not given notice or payment in lieu of notice!!!!

I haven't, and nor have you. On the other hand I've taken contractors off site for various reasons before now and I can assure you I didn't p!ss around with notice periods; if they're not performing they are of no use to me. The agency is told they're gone, please can I have another one and get a better candidate this time.

i.e. thats one of the whole points of the case - the Agency are REFUSING to confirm/deny whether they did or did not and said I must not contact the client - THAT is why it is going to court - bloody hell sounds like your agency could tell you little green men stole all their money & they cant pay you & your response would be 'ok thats fine I'll go away then'

Yadayadayada.
For one thing why do you assume I'm using an agency, or that they can tell me what to do? For another, why do you not assume the agency are simply trying to protect their future business and having some failed worker banging on to their client about rights and demanding money for not working isn't going to improve their position, especially since they are paid primarily to keep all such bollocks at arm's length.

Yuo need to grow up little man. Nothing you've said to date has given any hint that you have a case nor any understanding of why you haven't.

I'm out of here. Let us know when you lose.

[TheFaQQer]

OK, for those who haven't read the whole thread (and I recommend you do, it's a corker), here's what I think the OP has stated as fact relevant to the case:

• Contract has been terminated with immediate effect, a year ago
• Suing for breach of contract and unfair contract terms act (post 1)
• This is a business to business contract, which has not been honoured (post 11)
• Therefore, this is unethical (post 11)
• The contract states four weeks notice from agency to supplier (post 21)
• The contract states four weeks notice from supplier to agency (post 21)
• The contract states that the agency can terminate in consultation with the client (post 21)
• OP believes that the unfair contract terms act applies because they can consult with the client (post 24)
• The agency supplied their standard terms and conditions in advance (post 34)
• These were accepted by starting work
• The agency have not confirmed that they received money for the notice period (post 43)
• The agency have not denied that they received money for the notice period (post 43)
• The contract does not permit immediate termination for whatever reason (post 73)

Here's where I think there are problems with the case

• Just because something isn't ethical, it doesn't make it illegal
• The OP has no proof that the agency has taken any money owed to them
• Because there was a chance to negotiate the contract, and the OP didn't take it, Unfair Contract Terms Act is irrelevant
• I am astounded that there is no clause allowing for immediate termination in a standard agency contract

KittyCat, if the agency had said "here's your four weeks notice" and then told you not to turn up, would that have made the situation any better? It wouldn't have made any difference financially to you (apart from not spending time and effort for the past year on this case) - you would have had the notice period and had £0 because you did no work for this client in that time.

If you felt that the contract was unfair, why did you accept it? What has made the contract terms unfair (in a legal sense of the word rather that you just not thinking it's fair)? If you had received four weeks notice and no money from the client in that time, would the contract still be unfair?

Anyway, when the case comes up, please share the details - if you win then there is something that we can all learn here from your diligence, and if you lose then the amateur lawyers on the forum will at least have some precedent to quote. I'd also be interested in reading the court transcripts to see what evidence both parties put forward. If you don't want to state it publicly, then send me a PM.