Theoretical question regarding estoppel by aquiescence

[kaput]

Hi,

Please consider this vague and hypothetical scenario:

1. An employee does something (not deliberately) that may cause his employer a small amount of monetary damage;
2. Upon noticing what happened, the employer informs the employee and asks for it to stop
3. The employee remedies the problem as best he can
4. The employer takes no further action
5. The employment continues for at least another year

Does the employer's lack of further action in (4) constitue acceptance of the employee's remedy in (3)?

Does the employee's continued employment (5) with no disciplinary action taken by the employer further indicate acceptance of (3)?

After more than a year has passed, can the employer decide to seek damages for (1) through the county courts?

Is the employer estopped by acquiescence as such a long time has passed since the initial problem? Has he acquiesced on his right to bring a claim?

[charitynjw]

Re: Theoretical question regarding estoppel by aquiescence

Laches?

[kaput]

Re: Theoretical question regarding estoppel by aquiescence

Laches?

I didn't know about this, thank you! I'll have a read up.

[kaput]

Re: Theoretical question regarding estoppel by aquiescence

I'm starting to get confused now as I've found three similar things:

1. Estoppel by acquiescence
2. Estoppel by laches
3. Acquiescence by silence

I've found these worded in a number of different ways, and depending on the wording, any one of them would seem to apply to the scenario above.

[Eloise01]

Re: Theoretical question regarding estoppel by aquiescence

Of course an employer can take absolutely any legal action they want. Just as an employee can. Whether they will or not, and whether one or the other wins or not is another matter.

I see you are really taking my advice to stop getting distracted and concentrate on the main issues to heart.... Threats of legal action/ actions for costs etc., are, as I have already told you, par for the course in employment disputes, by both parties. So are you going to make good your threat of an employment tribunal or not?

[kaput]

Re: Theoretical question regarding estoppel by aquiescence

You know I'm going to make good on my threat to claim UD. However, like I said, I will wait a while longer to see what, if anything, comes if the conciliation. If it gets too close to the date when fees are to be introduced, then I will cancel the conciliation and file the ET1 which has already been filled in. It's all ready to go and I have no more work to do until I'm ready to send it.

In the meantime I see nothing wrong with anticipating my former employers next moves and learning as much as I can in order to defend myself properly. I fully expect them to file a separate county court claim against me. I expect it to focus on an incident that was resolved a long time ago. I do not expect them to follow the correct protocols as they are a small business with limited funds for appointing a qualified legal representative.

I understand they can initiate any action they like, but what I'm trying to understand is if some kind of estoppel would be a valid defence in the face of the scenario above.

[Eloise01]

Re: Theoretical question regarding estoppel by aquiescence

And the only answer you will ever get is maybe and mavbe not. There is a reason why they call them court cases - it requires a case to carry all the paperwork, details and arguments - not five vague hypothetical lines! It is certainly possible to claim damages for an event that has happened at some point in the past, and such claims can win. However, such threats by employers are seldom carried out - they and their solicitors may threaten all sorts of things they are very unlikely to do, but you can be certain that they will be maintaining focus on the one thing that matters. They are not going to be throwing away good money on expensive court cases when they are already facing costs for a tribunal. If they are going for you, that is where they will go for you - with a costs request / deposit order etc.