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

[jmo21]

Ok fair enough (tough thread to follow)

So the case is based entirely on a guess that agency did receive notice period money?

[NervousRexx]

Ok fair enough (tough thread to follow)

So the case is based entirely on a guess that agency did receive notice period money?

Don't know. Kitty's posts are too confusing. Hopefully, you'll shed some light on this.

<cough> sorry <mute>

[cojak]

No, it isn't a guess it's a question that the agency is refusing to answer.

[mudskipper]

No, it isn't a guess it's a question that the agency is refusing to answer.

Which does sound sus.

But is it actually relevant whether the agency has been paid notice? The Ltd Co's contract is with the agency - so that should apply whether or not the agency has negotiated something different with the client (either way) shouldn't it?

Good luck KC - would like to see you prove them wrong - let us know how it goes.

[malvolio]

No, it isn't a guess it's a question that the agency is refusing to answer.

Taking them to court to get an answer to a question they probably think is both irrelevant and insulting then.

Going back to the beginning she states " for sudden termination of my contract with no notice as per the assignment schedule & no payment in lieu. Summarising, I was blamed for the failure of a project that I was not involved in & was not the project manager" While I find that version of events highly suspicious anyway, it still hinges on whether or not a notice payment was made to the agency. In the case of an immediate termination for non-performance, no matter how justified or not, I personally find that highly unlikely, but what do I know.

[NervousRexx]

Taking them to court to get an answer to a question they probably think is both irrelevant and insulting then.

Going back to the beginning she states " for sudden termination of my contract with no notice as per the assignment schedule & no payment in lieu. Summarising, I was blamed for the failure of a project that I was not involved in & was not the project manager" While I find that version of events highly suspicious anyway, it still hinges on whether or not a notice payment was made to the agency. In the case of an immediate termination for non-performance, no matter how justified or not, I personally find that highly unlikely, but what do I know.

Kitty. Your main issue has been identified. I'd suggest reading the whole thread which contains input from IT professionals with 100s of male/female years IT experience and then make the right call....drop the case.

<mute>

[Wanderer]

Ok fair enough (tough thread to follow)

Agreed!

But is it actually relevant whether the agency has been paid notice? The Ltd Co's contract is with the agency - so that should apply whether or not the agency has negotiated something different with the client (either way) shouldn't it?

Yes, absolutely. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that broadly speaking, the Agency Regulations require that money paid by the client to the agent must be paid on to the worker.

Taking them to court to get an answer to a question they probably think is both irrelevant and insulting then.

Yes, your opinion on these cases is well noted, but the question is not irrelevant. As for insulting an agency, well.....

I think it will make an interesting test case to see what happens in the situation where an agency refuse to pay for a contracted notice period. Obviously the case will turn on the actual facts and the only thing we know for sure is that we don't have the full facts so it's not for us to judge...

I wouldn't be surprised if the case is quietly settled with a gagging clause to prevent Kitty talking about it further.

As many others have said, we await the outcome with great interest.

[NervousRexx]

Agreed!



Yes, absolutely. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that broadly speaking, the Agency Regulations require that money paid by the client to the agent must be paid on to the worker.



Yes, your opinion on these cases is well noted, but the question is not irrelevant. As for insulting an agency, well.....

I think it will make an interesting test case to see what happens in the situation where an agency refuse to pay for a contracted notice period. Obviously the case will turn on the actual facts and the only thing we know for sure is that we don't have the full facts so it's not for us to judge...

I wouldn't be surprised if the case is quietly settled with a gagging clause to prevent Kitty talking about it further.

As many others have said, we await the outcome with great interest.

I agree with NLUK; this won't make it to court. Not enough evidence. KC hasn't listened. If KC proves me wrong (unlikely - KC won't disclose the venue), I'll sell my house and pay the fees...
<<mute>>

[malvolio]

Yes, your opinion on these cases is well noted, but the question is not irrelevant.

The question is highly irrelevant, I'm afraid. The termination will have been effected by the client immediately terminating that engagement with the agency. The agency is obliged to pay any monies received to the worker, as per the Agency Regs, that is not in dispute. However, no money will have been paid.

Furthermore, payment by the agency will be subject to proof of work done, which won't exist. Notice periods for contractors are to give you fair warning that the work is stopping, not to let you hang on for a period when the client doesn't want you near their site, nor to recompense you for work stopping unexpectedly.

As fo the underlying legalities, and the actual basis of the case, is KC an employee or a contracted temporary worker? If the former, she is entitled to fair treatment and that includes the agreed notice in full, or a negotiated settlement, or a due disciplinary process as mandated by the employment legislation. If the latter, none of the above; a business relationship has been terminated, there are no accumulated rights nor protections, it is a risk of business that your work may stop at any time. You will have a hard time getting a judge to agree that a contractor is entitled to employment protection, when we have spent 11 years arguing that this is never the case.

You can't have it both ways. To win this case as it has been described, KC will have to prove she was an employee of the client or the agency. That ain't gonna happen.

Alternatively, let's assume KC is entitled to four week's notice on termination for any reason. Fine, that notice can be given. However, no work will have been offered, the rules of Mutuality that will be in the contract mean that no money is due where no work is offerred. Therefore, you can have four week's notice but there is no money owed as a result; in effect you can leave now or you can leave in four weeks, we care not, but you won't have a signed timesheet and you won't have delivered anything and therefore you have suffered no financial loss as a result of the notice period being curtailed so why are you still here?

Now do you understand why I think KC is pissing in the wind over this one? I may well be wrong of course and I still think we haven't been given anything like the full story here, but were I a betting man, I know which way I would bet.

[NervousRexx]

The question is highly irrelevant, I'm afraid. The termination will have been effected by the client immediately terminating that engagement with the agency. The agency is obliged to pay any monies received to the worker, as per the Agency Regs, that is not in dispute. However, no money will have been paid.

Furthermore, payment by the agency will be subject to proof of work done, which won't exist. Notice periods for contractors are to give you fair warning that the work is stopping, not to let you hang on for a period when the client doesn't want you near their site, nor to recompense you for work stopping unexpectedly.

As fo the underlying legalities, and the actual basis of the case, is KC an employee or a contracted temporary worker? If the former, she is entitled to fair treatment and that includes the agreed notice in full, or a negotiated settlement, or a due disciplinary process as mandated by the employment legislation. If the latter, none of the above; a business relationship has been terminated, there are no accumulated rights nor protections, it is a risk of business that your work may stop at any time. You will have a hard time getting a judge to agree that a contractor is entitled to employment protection, when we have spent 11 years arguing that this is never the case.

You can't have it both ways. To win this case as it has been described, KC will have to prove she was an employee of the client or the agency. That ain't gonna happen.

Alternatively, let's assume KC is entitled to four week's notice on termination for any reason. Fine, that notice can be given. However, no work will have been offered, the rules of Mutuality that will be in the contract mean that no money is due where no work is offerred. Therefore, you can have four week's notice but there is no money owed as a result; in effect you can leave now or you can leave in four weeks, we care not, but you won't have a signed timesheet and you won't have delivered anything and therefore you have suffered no financial loss as a result of the notice period being curtailed so why are you still here?

Now do you understand why I think KC is pissing in the wind over this one? I may well be wrong of course and I still think we haven't been given anything like the full story here, but were I a betting man, I know which way I would bet.

<mute> KC is ******* in the wind <mute>