*KittyCat Termination with no Notice* Result

Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

SimonMac replied

9 March 2012, 12:43
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

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

To think that (full thread) | Mumsnet Discussion

Fat girls are more greatful - is that what you're getting at?

Trot on, ****wit.

:lol:
Leave a comment:
TheFaQQer replied

7 March 2012, 18:12
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

I would love to believe this

Don't believe it for a second.
Leave a comment:
MarillionFan replied

3 March 2012, 15:23
Originally posted by Wanderer View Post

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.
Leave a comment:
northernladyuk replied

2 March 2012, 22:05
Originally posted by Wanderer View Post

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

More than you can imagine.
Leave a comment:
sbakoola replied

2 March 2012, 21:57
that's a result (if its true)
Leave a comment:
Wanderer replied

2 March 2012, 21:30
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

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?
Leave a comment:
BolshieBastard replied

2 March 2012, 20:20
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

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
Leave a comment:
SueEllen replied

2 March 2012, 17:05
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.
Leave a comment:
Podgy replied

2 March 2012, 15:09
Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

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
Leave a comment:
northernladuk replied

2 March 2012, 13:28
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

Last edited by northernladuk; 2 March 2012, 13:30.
Leave a comment:
Podgy started a topic *KittyCat Termination with no Notice* Result

2 March 2012, 11:46
*KittyCat Termination with no Notice* Result

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!
Tags: None