Breakdown or victimisation?

[charitynjw]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

You will also note the following paragraph:

O(2.1) you do not discriminate unlawfully, or victimise or harass anyone, in the course of your professional dealings;

[MENTION=26290]mariefab[/MENTION] has already responded to this, & I must agree; there is no detriment that I can see.

Litigation, or steps towards same, is still a very adversarial activity.

You have your perception of the matter; they clearly do not feel the same way.

On the one hand, you have been a client, & are owed a duty of confidentiality.

On the other hand, they appear to reject your claim of victimisation/bad faith/poor advice.

But you seem to be trying to force them into the 'ring' with both hands tied behind their backs

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

@mariefab has already responded to this, & I must agree; there is no detriment that I can see.

Litigation, or steps towards same, is still a very adversarial activity.

You have your perception of the matter; they clearly do not feel the same way.

On the one hand, you have been a client, & are owed a duty of confidentiality.

On the other hand, they appear to reject your claim of victimisation/bad faith/poor advice.

But you seem to be trying to force them into the 'ring' with both hands tied behind their backs

I do have difficulty seeing where a potential breach of confidentiality could cause an issue here. If I do not pursue legal action then there is really no justification for not having me as a client. The whole purpose of the pre-action protocol is to try and resolve the matter without involving the courts.

[charitynjw]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I do have difficulty seeing where a potential breach of confidentiality could cause an issue here. If I do not pursue legal action then there is really no justification for not having me as a client. The whole purpose of the pre-action protocol is to try and resolve the matter without involving the courts.

If you were not intending, or potentially considering, legal action, or some other course of action which would be injurious to them, why send an LBA? Especially on an issue like discrimination/victimisation.

They need to be free & clear of any obligation to you before they can defend their position.

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

If you were not intending, or potentially considering, legal action, or some other course of action which would be injurious to them, why send an LBA? Especially on an issue like discrimination/victimisation.

They need to be free & clear of any obligation to you before they can defend their position.

To ascertain if you have such a claim. This is the correct process to follow.

In any event, they have made it abundantly clear that the retainer was ended for other reasons than a conflict of interest.

[Noah]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Is this thread actually going to get anywhere?

A slightly philosophical question

Could the perceived 'injury' actually be related to your MH condition

Again , its not a judgement , just devils advocate

[charitynjw]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

To ascertain if you have such a claim. This is the correct process to follow.

In any event, they have made it abundantly clear that the retainer was ended for other reasons than a conflict of interest.

It seems very clear to me in the instant case that there is potentially a very large overlap with 'conflict of interest' & duty of care.

Is this thread actually going to get anywhere?

A slightly philosophical question

Could the perceived 'injury' actually be related to your MH condition

Again , its not a judgement , just devils advocate

Yes, in the file marked 'Unresolved difference of opinions'.

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Is this thread actually going to get anywhere?

Yes, it grants me the opinions of others.

A slightly philosophical question

Could the perceived 'injury' actually be related to your MH condition

Jeez, thanks. Now you are blaming it all on my MH condition?

Again , its not a judgement , just devils advocate

:tinysmile_cry_t:

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Just so we are clear here, when a 'disabled' person sends a firm a letter before action alleging a failure to make reasonable adjustments then that person should accept he will never be allowed to access the firms legal services in the future even if such adjustments are made?

I have sent my local NHS Trust a letter before action for alleged discrimination and we all know they have a duty of care and confidentiality. However, they continue to engage with me as before.

I think there is a fine line here and presumably we can agree on that. I am concerned they have edged unfairly on the 'victimisation' side of that line.

[mariefab]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I think there is a fine line here and presumably we can agree on that.

I don't agree.

Are you suggesting that the solicitors shouldn't have taken your LBA seriously.
A letter before action isn't a vague tentative suggestion or a request for further information.
It's a formal document which should indicate the grounds for the intended proceedings and state that unless the required remedy is made proceedings will follow without further notice.

The NHS can't refuse to provide their services no matter what they're accused of.
The solicitors both can and should refuse to represent someone who intends to sue them.

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I don't agree.

Are you suggesting that the solicitors shouldn't have taken your LBA seriously.
A letter before action isn't a vague tentative suggestion or a request for further information.
It's a formal document which should indicate the grounds for the intended proceedings and state that unless the required remedy is made proceedings will follow without further notice.

The NHS can't refuse to provide their services no matter what they're accused of.
The solicitors both can and should refuse to represent someone who intends to sue them.

The firm in question was not to represent me. It was only to offer legal advise by way of legal aid. Legal aid does not cover representation in a County Court or Employment Tribunal.

The main purpose of the LBA is to understand each others legal position.

A NHS GP, consultant or dentist can refuse to see you and also allege a 'breakdown'. This happens quite often.

So, still not 100% convinced. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Noah]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

I was not blaming anything on your health, mental or otherwise however after having lived with someone with bpd for many years your response would be one of the two extremes I would have received . The other would have been laughing agreement.

welcome to my life!

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Perhaps an interesting case to how the judiciary approaches the 'trust and confidence' issue in a victimisation case:

http://uk.practicallaw.com/3-526-2165

[charitynjw]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Perhaps an interesting case to how the judiciary approaches the 'trust and confidence' issue in a victimisation case:

http://uk.practicallaw.com/3-526-2165

Hi heisenberg

Perhaps you could explain how you equate the Bouabdillah case with your own perceived position.?

[heisenberg]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Hi heisenberg

Perhaps you could explain how you equate the Bouabdillah case with your own perceived position.?

Hello again. :tinysmile_grin_t:

In that case the employer argued that there was a 'trust and confidence' issue which justified the termination of employment. That argument ran out of mileage.

All I am saying is that the firm in my case may be overly enthusiastic in terms of instigating a 'breakdown' and should there actually be a 'breakdown' then I'm sure that is probably quite convenient for them in many ways.

[charitynjw]

Re: Breakdown or victimisation?

Hello again. :tinysmile_grin_t:

In that case the employer argued that there was a 'trust and confidence' issue which justified the termination of employment. That argument ran out of mileage.

All I am saying is that the firm in my case may be overly enthusiastic in terms of instigating a 'breakdown' and should there actually be a 'breakdown' then I'm sure that is probably quite convenient for them in many ways.

Hi

From what I can see (I'm no expert ), the Tribunal felt that B had no liability to disclose the protected act re her previous employer. She was not specifically asked about it by the new employer, & she remained silent about it.
The Tribunal decided she was within her rights to do so.

How does that compare with your situation?