If the employers have offered to settle in full than the Tribunial wouldn't look favourably on the employee continuing.
But an employer dragging it out to the last minute means more costs and worry for the employee. Not sure you can automatically recover legal costs either at ETs although my employment law is rusty.
Pleased for Rick but frustrated not to hear the evidence from both sides.
I am pretty sure that employers do not get any costs back if they win. As far as I am aware the law has recently changed and employees now have to pay a fee to take employers to tribunal, obviously this does not apply to cases already in progress.
I have just returned from the hearing at the Industrial tribunal place near West Croydon station.
I will report the facts first.
The hearing opened in room 2. In attendance apart from Rick and his wife Corinna were two journalists, one from the News Shopper, and one from the Wharf, an author of a book on the History of Charlton, the Professor of Politics at Warwick University, Martin Prothero, Caspar Glynn QC, myself, and the Judge. Caspar Glynn, the Queens Counsel who was acting for the club, opened by informing the judge that 'Mr Everitt has agreed to withdraw his claim on the basis of a confidential agreement having been reached'. The Judge checked that with Rick, who was acting for himself, and told Rick that once agreed the claim could not be re-opened. Rick said he fully understood that. The judge said he would record the decision formally. Proceedings finished.
My Comments:
Personally I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever as to the nature of the confidential agreement, not least because confidential is confidential. I was fascinated by the whole thing, all the lawyers were in suits, and everyone of them were towing Big Brother/Apprentice type suitcases, presumably containing case papers. Caspar Glynns suitcase was one of the bigger ones, presumably full of important papers to bring out if an agreement couldn't be reached. Martin Prothero had a suitcase too, but it may have been an overnight bag as he doesn't live down here, and may have stayed overnight, or it too may have contained loads of documents. I assume that whilst Mr Prothero was there he wasn't dealing with transfer deadline day stuff.
I would hope there is a job for Rick in the club in the future. He achieved some great things. I remember thinking he was off his trolley with target 10,000 - but we have reached a point where we have around that number in season ticket holders although attendances are starting to slip a little of late. Would we be able to say this without him? I doubt it. Ok, it turned sour but new owners and he can start working on target 20,000. I'm sure he will have ideas on how to achieve this.
But an employer dragging it out to the last minute means more costs and worry for the employee. Not sure you can automatically recover legal costs either at ETs although my employment law is rusty.
Costs are not automatically recoverable.
Costs are usually recoverable if the person bring the case has a frivolous case, or one of the parties has blatantly lied under oath and/or has refused a reasonable offer to settle beforehand. I doubt that Rick would have much by way of costs if he represented himself.
I have represented many people at Employment Tribunals and can confirm from my experience what others have said that most of them get settled well before the day of the hearing. Like others I want to stress that I am not making any judgement about Airman's case which I suspect was very strong and also potentially very embarrassing to his former employer.
In the run up to the proceedings each side has to exchange witness statements and any supporting documents normally about a month before the hearing.My experience is that at this point the respective advisers and lawyers can realistically assess the prospects of defeat and the value of defending the case weighed against making a financial settlement which can often be pitched at a level which would be higher than the award which would be on offer if the claimant won their case.I suspect this might be the case here because there will be info which CAFC would not want in the public domain.
Also in my experience when the proceedings are about to start quite often the Employment Judge (they used to be called the Chairman) will often direct the parties in areas where they believe that a settlement can be reached and give very broad hints as to their views based on the written evidence.
It is also my view that often employing lawyers is often counter productive as they needlessly want to debate points of law and my success in this arena often came because I had no legal training and would argue the merits of the case rather than legal precedent.
I have represented many people at Employment Tribunals and can confirm from my experience what others have said that most of them get settled well before the day of the hearing. Like others I want to stress that I am not making any judgement about Airman's case which I suspect was very strong and also potentially very embarrassing to his former employer.
In the run up to the proceedings each side has to exchange witness statements and any supporting documents normally about a month before the hearing.My experience is that at this point the respective advisers and lawyers can realistically assess the prospects of defeat and the financial value of defending the case weighed against making a financial settlement which can often be pitched at a level which would be higher than the award which would be on offer if the claimant won their case.I suspect this might be the case here because there will be info which CAFC would not want in the public domain.
Also in my experience when the proceedings are about to start quite often the Employment Judge (they used to be called the Chairman) will often direct the parties in areas where they believe that a settlement can be reached and give very broad hints as to their views based on the written evidence.
It is also my view that often employing lawyers is often counter productive as they needlessly want to debate points of law and my success in this arena often came because I had no legal training and would argue the merits of the case rather than legal precedent.
Reflecting on my experience today, I would say that this is a very insightful post indeed.
According to his profile, he advised NUFC on Keegan's compo claim, Chris Hughton's termination agreement and on Alan Pardew's 8 year contract (amongst others). Wonder who recommended him...
"Personally I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever as to the nature of the confidential agreement, not least because confidential is confidential. I was fascinated by the whole thing, all the lawyers were in suits, and everyone of them were towing Big Brother/Apprentice type suitcases, presumably containing case papers. Caspar Glynns suitcase was one of the bigger ones, presumably full of important papers to bring out if an agreement couldn't be reached. Martin Prothero had a suitcase too, but it may have been an overnight bag as he doesn't live down here, and may have stayed overnight, or it too may have contained loads of documents."
I have reported on a few ETs and they always have suitcases full of papers, it is amazing how much they clog up. The last one I worked on had 17 Lever Arch files involved, and everyone has to have copies of everything. As soon as anyone refers to anything they have to give the folder and page number and everyone shuffles around to find it - meaning that everything always takes ages!
And I have known employers to be awarded costs but it is unusual. Given that the settlement was 11th hour I don't think either side would have been accused of frivolous action in this case so will probably pay their own costs. I wonder if Rick would have taken the case under the new rules?
I don't think Caspar Glynn drove away on a Brompton, his suitcase was much too big. Others may reflect on why this matter has dragged out so long, and then gets settled at the last minute. My olden days experience in a Trade Union is that the whole process can be very stressful for employees and their families, and we were always advised to sort things out as quickly as possible.
I have represented many people at Employment Tribunals and can confirm from my experience what others have said that most of them get settled well before the day of the hearing. Like others I want to stress that I am not making any judgement about Airman's case which I suspect was very strong and also potentially very embarrassing to his former employer.
In the run up to the proceedings each side has to exchange witness statements and any supporting documents normally about a month before the hearing.My experience is that at this point the respective advisers and lawyers can realistically assess the prospects of defeat and the financial value of defending the case weighed against making a financial settlement which can often be pitched at a level which would be higher than the award which would be on offer if the claimant won their case.I suspect this might be the case here because there will be info which CAFC would not want in the public domain.
Also in my experience when the proceedings are about to start quite often the Employment Judge (they used to be called the Chairman) will often direct the parties in areas where they believe that a settlement can be reached and give very broad hints as to their views based on the written evidence.
It is also my view that often employing lawyers is often counter productive as they needlessly want to debate points of law and my success in this arena often came because I had no legal training and would argue the merits of the case rather than legal precedent.
A fascinating insight, Richard J - Thanks for that.
"•acting for Charlton in respect of claims brought by former senior employees"
How much sodding money have we wasted paying him ffs?
Good question.
Would have been much quicker, cheaper and last damaging to CAFC's reputation to make people redudent in a proper manner, pay them off and get them to sign a confidentiality agreement.
"•acting for Charlton in respect of claims brought by former senior employees"
How much sodding money have we wasted paying him ffs?
Good question.
Would have been much quicker, cheaper and last damaging to CAFC's reputation to make people redudent in a proper manner, pay them off and get them to sign a confidentiality agreement.
And in Rick's case it would surely have been easy to do. He would have been in a pool of one and they could easily change that type of role to get a nw person in (which I note they haven't). Would be much harder for the others though as you need a managing director role and a head of catering role for example.
Firstly, while this is all a bit titillating for us, this is real life we are discussing and in this case, a fellow fan out of work with a wife and kid to support. I hope you are happy with your settlement Airman.
Secondly, I wonder what impact any confidentiality clause will have on the Voice, particularly for any columns written under pseudonyms?
I feel very let down by AB, as we know him, and I just hope that the compensation was worth it
I very much doubt that Rick had any real options. They would have known what level to pitch in at with a settlement offer which would have been more than the tribunal would have awarded. Anyone not knowing the whole story would have said, take the money, you've done well. More importantly the chairman would have seen it this way and have been rather impatient with anyone who appeared to turn down a very good offer. Rick did what was undoubtedly the best thing for him and his family and that's what really counts.
I feel very let down by AB, as we know him, and I just hope that the compensation was worth it
how has he let you down ?
he has a family to support as his first priority and he's given enough hints to what he thinks of our present owners , ok we're not gonna get the ins and outs of a ducks arse but come on
"•acting for Charlton in respect of claims brought by former senior employees"
How much sodding money have we wasted paying him ffs?
Good question.
Would have been much quicker, cheaper and last damaging to CAFC's reputation to make people redudent in a proper manner, pay them off and get them to sign a confidentiality agreement.
And in Rick's case it would surely have been easy to do. He would have been in a pool of one and they could easily change that type of role to get a nw person in (which I note they haven't). Would be much harder for the others though as you need a managing director role and a head of catering role for example.
They could still have gone down the redundancy path - by avoiding the term redundancy and offering a compromise agreement. Most of the big employers - that want to "get rid of people" for whatever reason do this. It offers the employee almost the same benefits of a redundancy agreement (including the tax free element up to £30k). It just means the employee has to sign and agree to certain terms - normally including non-disclosure - early on and avoids most of the expensive legal costs.
If the club agreed to settle then as stated there was no point in him persuing the case and as mentioned the Judge would be far from pleased if he did, purely to air his grievances in public.
I feel very let down by AB, as we know him, and I just hope that the compensation was worth it
I think that's unfair on AB.
As Richard J said employer's will often offer "a financial settlement which can often be pitched at a level which would be higher than the award which would be on offer if the claimant won their case"
Then, if the employee rejects the offer and then goes on to 'win' a lower award, they could become liable for costs (which in the case of Mr Caspar Glyn could be considerable) and of 'failing to mitigate their loss'; as this report of an Employment Appeal Tribunal case makes clear:
"Often the offers will be made "without prejudice save as to costs"….If the offer is refused (or the eventual judgment is no more favourable than the offer made) the Respondent has reserved the right to let the Tribunal know that time and costs could have been saved had the Claimant have accepted an earlier, more favourable offer. If the Tribunal agrees that by turning the offer down the Claimant has acted vexatiously or particularly unreasonably, it may agree to make an award of costs in favour of the Respondent.....
[This] case now gives lawyers for the Respondent the opportunity to advance an even stronger argument; that by turning the offer down, the Claimant failed to mitigate their losses. If that argument is successful the Claimant wins nothing. What is more, the Claimant may still go on to face an application for costs!"
"•acting for Charlton in respect of claims brought by former senior employees"
How much sodding money have we wasted paying him ffs?
Good question.
Would have been much quicker, cheaper and last damaging to CAFC's reputation to make people redudent in a proper manner, pay them off and get them to sign a confidentiality agreement.
And in Rick's case it would surely have been easy to do. He would have been in a pool of one and they could easily change that type of role to get a nw person in (which I note they haven't). Would be much harder for the others though as you need a managing director role and a head of catering role for example.
They could still have gone down the redundancy path - by avoiding the term redundancy and offering a compromise agreement. Most of the big employers - that want to "get rid of people" for whatever reason do this. It offers the employee almost the same benefits of a redundancy agreement (including the tax free element up to £30k). It just means the employee has to sign and agree to certain terms - normally including non-disclosure - early on and avoids most of the expensive legal costs.
Yes, it seems ridiculous to end up in an industrial tribunal (in Croydon) with an expensive lawyer, only to settle with RE anyway.
I presume RE will be barred from talking about the terms of his agreement, and about why he was sacked by the club, but won't be barred from talking (in detail) about the workings of the club. Otherwise VOTV could be quite dull in the future :-)
So VOTV had something to do with it? Instead of the real story coming out on here, it would have got a wider audience around the ground via VOTV and they decided to settle instead?
Comments
As far as I am aware the law has recently changed and employees now have to pay a fee to take employers to tribunal, obviously this does not apply to cases already in progress.
I will report the facts first.
The hearing opened in room 2. In attendance apart from Rick and his wife Corinna were two journalists, one from the News Shopper, and one from the Wharf, an author of a book on the History of Charlton, the Professor of Politics at Warwick University, Martin Prothero, Caspar Glynn QC, myself, and the Judge.
Caspar Glynn, the Queens Counsel who was acting for the club, opened by informing the judge that 'Mr Everitt has agreed to withdraw his claim on the basis of a confidential agreement having been reached'.
The Judge checked that with Rick, who was acting for himself, and told Rick that once agreed the claim could not be re-opened.
Rick said he fully understood that.
The judge said he would record the decision formally.
Proceedings finished.
My Comments:
Personally I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever as to the nature of the confidential agreement, not least because confidential is confidential.
I was fascinated by the whole thing, all the lawyers were in suits, and everyone of them were towing Big Brother/Apprentice type suitcases, presumably containing case papers. Caspar Glynns suitcase was one of the bigger ones, presumably full of important papers to bring out if an agreement couldn't be reached.
Martin Prothero had a suitcase too, but it may have been an overnight bag as he doesn't live down here, and may have stayed overnight, or it too may have contained loads of documents.
I assume that whilst Mr Prothero was there he wasn't dealing with transfer deadline day stuff.
Costs are not automatically recoverable.
Costs are usually recoverable if the person bring the case has a frivolous case, or one of the parties has blatantly lied under oath and/or has refused a reasonable offer to settle beforehand. I doubt that Rick would have much by way of costs if he represented himself.
In the run up to the proceedings each side has to exchange witness statements and any supporting documents normally about a month before the hearing.My experience is that at this point the respective advisers and lawyers can realistically assess the prospects of defeat and the value of defending the case weighed against making a financial settlement which can often be pitched at a level which would be higher than the award which would be on offer if the claimant won their case.I suspect this might be the case here because there will be info which CAFC would not want in the public domain.
Also in my experience when the proceedings are about to start quite often the Employment Judge (they used to be called the Chairman) will often direct the parties in areas where they believe that a settlement can be reached and give very broad hints as to their views based on the written evidence.
It is also my view that often employing lawyers is often counter productive as they needlessly want to debate points of law and my success in this arena often came because I had no legal training and would argue the merits of the case rather than legal precedent.
According to his profile, he advised NUFC on Keegan's compo claim, Chris Hughton's termination agreement and on Alan Pardew's 8 year contract (amongst others). Wonder who recommended him...
I was fascinated by the whole thing, all the lawyers were in suits, and everyone of them were towing Big Brother/Apprentice type suitcases, presumably containing case papers. Caspar Glynns suitcase was one of the bigger ones, presumably full of important papers to bring out if an agreement couldn't be reached.
Martin Prothero had a suitcase too, but it may have been an overnight bag as he doesn't live down here, and may have stayed overnight, or it too may have contained loads of documents."
I have reported on a few ETs and they always have suitcases full of papers, it is amazing how much they clog up. The last one I worked on had 17 Lever Arch files involved, and everyone has to have copies of everything. As soon as anyone refers to anything they have to give the folder and page number and everyone shuffles around to find it - meaning that everything always takes ages!
And I have known employers to be awarded costs but it is unusual. Given that the settlement was 11th hour I don't think either side would have been accused of frivolous action in this case so will probably pay their own costs. I wonder if Rick would have taken the case under the new rules?
"•acting for Charlton in respect of claims brought by former senior employees"
How much sodding money have we wasted paying him ffs?
I doubt he drove away in anything less than a top of the range Beamer or Merc.
The answer...a lot.
Others may reflect on why this matter has dragged out so long, and then gets settled at the last minute. My olden days experience in a Trade Union is that the whole process can be very stressful for employees and their families, and we were always advised to sort things out as quickly as possible.
Would have been much quicker, cheaper and last damaging to CAFC's reputation to make people redudent in a proper manner, pay them off and get them to sign a confidentiality agreement.
Would be much harder for the others though as you need a managing director role and a head of catering role for example.
Secondly, I wonder what impact any confidentiality clause will have on the Voice, particularly for any columns written under pseudonyms?
how has he let you down ?
he has a family to support as his first priority and he's given enough hints to what he thinks of our present owners , ok we're not gonna get the ins and outs of a ducks arse but come on
As Richard J said employer's will often offer "a financial settlement which can often be pitched at a level which would be higher than the award which would be on offer if the claimant won their case"
Then, if the employee rejects the offer and then goes on to 'win' a lower award, they could become liable for costs (which in the case of Mr Caspar Glyn could be considerable) and of 'failing to mitigate their loss'; as this report of an Employment Appeal Tribunal case makes clear:
http://www.birketts.co.uk/resources/legal-updates/1274/gambling-with-offers-to-settle-greedy-claimants-might-think-again/
"Often the offers will be made "without prejudice save as to costs"….If the offer is refused (or the eventual judgment is no more favourable than the offer made) the Respondent has reserved the right to let the Tribunal know that time and costs could have been saved had the Claimant have accepted an earlier, more favourable offer. If the Tribunal agrees that by turning the offer down the Claimant has acted vexatiously or particularly unreasonably, it may agree to make an award of costs in favour of the Respondent.....
[This] case now gives lawyers for the Respondent the opportunity to advance an even stronger argument; that by turning the offer down, the Claimant failed to mitigate their losses. If that argument is successful the Claimant wins nothing. What is more, the Claimant may still go on to face an application for costs!"
I presume RE will be barred from talking about the terms of his agreement, and about why he was sacked by the club, but won't be barred from talking (in detail) about the workings of the club. Otherwise VOTV could be quite dull in the future :-)