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

[KittyCat]

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

I'll appeal.

[KittyCat]

Humungous Costs?

I'll appeal.

I dont understand where you are getting these huge fees from? at the moment my costs are more than the agencies - their costs are governed - they cant just charge what the hell they like! I & clearly the courts know this? I know what costs I'm up against & it is definately worth pursuing .. I dont actually think they would get any costs as they have done nothing! no witness statements? disclosure statement lists court documents & a few emails - all after the event ..O dear

[KittyCat]

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.

Who said my company would go bankrupt? blimey you lot do ASSUME such a lot?

Lets get one thing straight!

I was the one that was wronged - I dont care how you dress anything up - i.e. you'll lose, huge costs, more money than sense, you'll pay, your company goes bust, you cant work in certain environments, director closing company, .... blah blah blah blah blah - trust me IF it got to that point I would appeal & HMRC would know - they are actually already aware thru my accounts that this case is happening - I'm honest

[KittyCat]

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.

Who said my company would go bankrupt? blimey you lot do ASSUME such a lot?

Lets get one thing straight!

I was the one that was wronged - I dont care how you dress anything up - i.e. you'll lose, huge costs, more money than sense, you'll pay, your company goes bust, you cant work in certain environments, director closing company, .... blah blah blah blah blah - trust me IF it got to that point I would appeal & HMRC would know - they are actually already aware thru my accounts that this case is happening - I'm honest... I really think your missing the point of whats right or wrong?

[KittyCat]

No Asset Stripping

I believe that point has been made:


--



And that one:



--

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

My company will operate in the same way it has done from inception.

In terms of special damages I was offered permanent roles by 2 senior managers at the clients who were trying to poach me from the team I was in (they are still my friends) - I could go for more - I havent - I just wanted the notice - it is in no way vexatious - it is only now it is going to court & the Judge said about special damages - I did think could I put that loss of opportunity? I did'nt. I did not have a job/contract until Sept this year (this happened in Oct last year) - my contract now is for one of the highest financial institutions - with more £'s - I dont need any reference from any bad company & trust me even tho its a big client - its a very bad one to have on your cv. My accounts will operate exactly as normal.

My company will NOT pay for malpractice by other companies.

[KittyCat]

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.

Yes - definately if you go to court & lose you will have a black mark - in terms of my case I'm A1 for credit rating - I have NEVER defaulted on anything & I have - in combination - about 20 credits cards & mortgage & stuff managed since I was 18 - I have never in my entire life not paid any bill on time - I'm seriously not worried scaremongering it really should not be a barrier

[KittyCat]

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.

Banking & Insurance - yes - but who wants to work there! finance, defence & NHS already worked in - I know how it works

[KittyCat]

Picking up another point, PCG won't touch this with a bargepole, on the facts presented to date, since the only likely outcome is to make clients more averse to using contractors that they can't get rid of without incurring significnat costs, which is not why they hrire them in the first place.

sorry - but that is such a joke - every law that came to pass for employment has never stopped employment - give me a break - just ridiculous - based on the min wage argument? & look what difference that made - it actually makes no difference - the work, the people, companies, - still exist - do you think their going to down tools? do nothing? it actually makes NO difference to companies that already act ethically - these laws are made by the conduct of companies who treat their employees as **** remember that

[KittyCat]

Yep, and they're still trading. With the same website and 95% of the same content and all of the same business model. And people are still using them...

That's the other side of the coin, of course. All I'm describing earlier is the worst case scenario; the chances of it going like that aren't that high but it could happen. You can't guarantee you'll be able to divorce yourself totally from your Ltd Co's actions.

so I am perfectly justified in wanting to know what happened

all I knew was the agencies word & then told not to contact the client at all - so it could have been the same as above? I only have the agencies word? say they banked my money then went bust? what is the difference to me? None - I would not know the difference?

[malvolio]

Picking up another point, PCG won't touch this with a bargepole, on the facts presented to date, since the only likely outcome is to make clients more averse to using contractors that they can't get rid of without incurring significnat costs, which is not why they hrire them in the first place.

sorry - but that is such a joke - every law that came to pass for employment has never stopped employment - give me a break - just ridiculous - based on the min wage argument? & look what difference that made - it actually makes no difference - the work, the people, companies, - still exist - do you think their going to down tools? do nothing? it actually makes NO difference to companies that already act ethically - these laws are made by the conduct of companies who treat their employees as **** remember that

Now I know you're trolling. Why would PCG b eintrested in employees?