*KittyCat Termination with no Notice* Result

[Podgy]

Updating on behalf of KittyCat;

The case did not go to court on Feb 21st 2012 as the Agency asked to negotiate 2 days prior to court;

In summary the settlement agreed prior to court was;

4 weeks notice
Court Costs
Solicitors Costs
KittyCat Costs

i.e. what KittyCat would have got if the case had won in court!

KittyCat will provide further info on the legal argument once all the cash is in the bank!

[northernladuk]

I would love to believe this and be pleased it can go in our favour but you have put '*' around your titles in the same way Tiddles and KC did so I am not bought in to this 'on behalf' and it appears KC is also a character on Mumsnet who commented on a thread trolled by CUK so looks more like payback. Could be a complete coincidence but still...

Evidence here..

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post1488012

and because of that.. I am out...

Edit : Thread on mumsnet has been removed but here is the GCache

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...k-that&ct=clnk

[Podgy]

I would love to believe this and be pleased it can go in our favour but you have put '*' around your titles in the same way Tiddles and KC did so I am not bought in to this 'on behalf' and it appears KC is also a character on Mumsnet who commented on a thread trolled by CUK so looks more like payback. Could be a complete coincidence but still...

Evidence here..

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post1488012

and because of that.. I am out...

Edit : Thread on mumsnet has been removed but here is the GCache

To think that (full thread) | Mumsnet Discussion

nope KC not responsible for mumsnet - KC is prob quite a common name? will show some sort of 'anonymous' evidence

[SueEllen]

So to summarise as this is the second thread mentioning taking agents to court over notice periods -

If an agent or direct client puts a notice clause in a contract they have to honour it unless there are just reasons (not made up reasons) to get rid of a contractor.

Though if they were more intelligent they would work out how to use the MOO clauses in the contract to their advantage.

And the reason not to go to court for the agencies/companies is so they aren't named in any press releases or internet sites. Lots of agreements have gagging clauses in them.

[BolshieBastard]

I would love to believe this and be pleased it can go in our favour but you have put '*' around your titles in the same way Tiddles and KC did so I am not bought in to this 'on behalf' and it appears KC is also a character on Mumsnet who commented on a thread trolled by CUK so looks more like payback. Could be a complete coincidence but still...

Evidence here..

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post1488012

and because of that.. I am out...

Edit : Thread on mumsnet has been removed but here is the GCache

To think that (full thread) | Mumsnet Discussion

+1

[Wanderer]

it appears KC is also a character on Mumsnet

I do worry about your obsession with Mumsnet, mate. Is there something you are not telling us?

[sbakoola]

that's a result (if its true)

[northernladyuk]

I do worry about your obsession with Mumsnet, mate. Is there something you are not telling us?

More than you can imagine.

[MarillionFan]

I do worry about your obsession with Mumsnet, mate. Is there something you are not telling us?

It could be a mumsnetter or possibly not. Neither of the Test Please Delete or BN66 threads I've read on Mumsnet are much cop.

[TheFaQQer]

I would love to believe this

Don't believe it for a second.