Victimisation or not victimisation

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

It is point in procedure not a point in law is what you're failing to understand. A point in law is legal point ie a section or provision. The fact the party has not followed the pre-action protocols fairly is something you should raise with the court, but the party omitting to do this in my view is not of itself a detriment by way of a point of law reliant on or pursuant to the Equality Act. If you try this, it's likely you'll be viewed as vexatious litigant. You cannot win every war but you may win some battles.

So what you are saying is this is purely an issue of whether or not a party should be subject to sanctions for failing to comply?

I think there is a fine line here. It was clear the other side were seeking to subject me to a detriment. From what you are saying this type of detriment is immune from the Equality Act?

- - - Updated - - -

Protected act means like report an employer for breaking health and safety law, taking an employer to tribunal for discrimination, whistle-blowing etc.

The protected act is not the issue - it is whether I was subject to a detriment for making an allegation (section 27(2)(d)).

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

IMHO

A PAP is meant, amongst other things, to narrow the facts, & to encourage a settling of contentious issues without resorting to litigation.
This forms part of the Overriding Objective.
It shouldn't be used as a manipulative tool, but failure to engage in the process could be brought to the attention of the court to show a party's unreasonable behaviour.

Absolutely, but one should not think that because the PAP or legal process is engaged that one can subject the other side to a detriment with impunity e.g. hurling a few insults at the other side on the way out of the court building.

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

I think, as a matter of precaution, I will take the advice offered here though this seems a contentious issue.

Really irked by their unreasonable conduct though. Discrimination claims are notoriously difficult to prove and when they fail to share information is makes it a lot harder particularly for a LiP.

[charitynjw]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

I think, as a matter of precaution, I will take the advice offered here though this seems a contentious issue.

Really irked by their unreasonable conduct though. Discrimination claims are notoriously difficult to prove and when they fail to share information is makes it a lot harder particularly for a LiP.

Hi heisenberg

I don't do advice, only opinion.

Caveat Lector & all that!

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Hi heisenberg

I don't do advice, only opinion.

Caveat Lector & all that!

Advice is a matter of opinion as far as I'm concerned. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[charitynjw]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Advice is a matter of opinion as far as I'm concerned. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

Imho, advice is like the drive train, or gearbox, which may (or may not) result in action of some kind.

Opinion is just a small part in the gearbox!

:tinysmile_twink_t2:

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Imho, advice is like the drive train, or gearbox, which may (or may not) result in action of some kind.

Opinion is just a small part in the gearbox!

:tinysmile_twink_t2:

If you insist. :wink:

[charitynjw]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

If you insist. :wink:

Perhaps we have a differential of opinion?

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Perhaps we have a differential of opinion?

Touché.

[Guest]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Heisenberg
I think Charitynjw has explained what i was meaning when I talked about a letter of cliam. From reading the Pre Action protocols they are intended to be a tool for arbitration and conciliation and not as a weapon. Of course, non compliance can be brought before a court , well if I have read all that legal jargon correctly but I am not sure what that would do

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Heisenberg
I think Charitynjw has explained what i was meaning when I talked about a letter of cliam. From reading the Pre Action protocols they are intended to be a tool for arbitration and conciliation and not as a weapon. Of course, non compliance can be brought before a court , well if I have read all that legal jargon correctly but I am not sure what that would do

Thanks Berti.

Arguably it can be used as a tactical weapon to suppress a claim too. A non-compliance could discourage those from bringing a claim as they are hampered in establishing their legal position albeit in part.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

Advice is a matter of opinion as far as I'm concerned. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

advice = legal advice but even though i have studied law am not qualified, so any advice I provide will be unqualified. For this reason I provide my opinion which need not be qualified but may be persuasive.

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

advice = legal advice but even though i have studied law am not qualified, so any advice I provide will be unqualified. For this reason I provide my opinion which need not be qualified but may be persuasive.

The law changes so often that any legal qualifications are soon not worth all that much. What really matters is common sense and a good grasp of legal principles generally in my opinion.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

The law changes so often that any legal qualifications are soon not worth all that much. What really matters is common sense and a good grasp of legal principles generally in my opinion.

The main principles of law do not change, as the law avails various remedies for the various facts. Common law for instance cannot hope to apply to every single situation but is meant instead where the facts are similar to the common law's cases. Statute is different it is constant unless its law is repealed, statute must be interpreted as Parliament intended, in legal theory anyway ha ha. Law is not about common sense as this just means sense which is common, common to whom and sense according to whom, ie it's very subjective to say that. Neither is law rationale, law is a mechanism to deal with society's problems but it doesn't mean it's fair necessarily. However, a practicing lawyer is likely to be up to date on the applicable legal principles in practice, whereas my point I am not at all as there are so many cases and so many principles in practice but not that many relatively in theory, ergo we call it academic law.

[heisenberg]

Re: Victimisation or not victimisation

The main principles of law do not change, as the law avails various remedies for the various facts. Common law for instance cannot hope to apply to every single situation but is meant instead where the facts are similar to the common law's cases. Statute is different it is constant unless its law is repealed, statute must be interpreted as Parliament intended, in legal theory anyway ha ha. Law is not about common sense as this just means sense which is common, common to whom and sense according to whom, ie it's very subjective to say that. Neither is law rationale, law is a mechanism to deal with society's problems but it doesn't mean it's fair necessarily. However, a practicing lawyer is likely to be up to date on the applicable legal principles in practice, whereas my point I am not at all as there are so many cases and so many principles in practice but not that many relatively in theory, ergo we call it academic law.

That's all a matter of opinion. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

Similarly and ultimately, Judges are exercising theirs when enforcing the law and it seems they can't even agree with each other as judgments are quashed all the time.

Even the House of Lords made a real mess of Parliament's intent under the DDA 1995 and the concept of disability-related discrimination i.e. in the case of Lewisham LBC v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43.

Arguably, the judiciary made such a complicated mess of the various anti-discrimination laws that Parliament felt obliged to harmonise everything under one Act.

Common sense = good sense and sound judgement in practical matters. Is that not we rely on our judiciary to have? :tinysmile_twink_t2: