St Stephen the Great – Case Management Discussion 18/9/08

Phil Groom writes:

Thanks to Cherry Hamilton, Usdaw’s Media Officer, for this report, received this afternoon. At this stage I’ll leave it for others to dissect and discuss…

Also available for download as a pdf.

.

St Stephen the Great – Case Management Discussion 18/9/08

At the Case Management Discussion on Thursday 18/9/08 Employment Judge Mitchell made the following orders

  • He confirmed that there are 3 Respondents:-

–       St Stephen the Great Ltd

–       St Stephen the Great Charitable Trust

–       ENC Shop Management Co.

He stated that as St Stephen the Great Llc does not exist they could not be a Respondent.

  • All claimants were granted leave to submit claims against any Respondents they had not thus far submitted claims against.
  • The respondents were given until 16/10/08 to reply to any claims to which they have not yet responded.
  • The Judge acknowledged that an important issue in these cases is which organisation was the employer at the date of dismissal and thus who is the appropriate Respondent. He plans to deal with this as a preliminary issue at a preliminary hearing in the New Year.
  • The parties were ordered to exchange a list of documents relating to the issue of which respondent was the employer at the date of dismissal by 14/11/08.
  • There will be a further Case Management Discussion on 11/12/08 by telephone which will timetable a preliminary hearing and steps to take in anticipation of such a hearing. The preliminary hearing will address the issue of which organisation was the employer and thus should be the Respondent.

Once the preliminary issue concerning the identity of the appropriate Respondent is resolved we will be able to move on to look at the merits of the individual cases.

Advertisements

6 responses to “St Stephen the Great – Case Management Discussion 18/9/08

  1. This looks a positive step forward, in as much that ENC and St Stephen the Great are related and that SSG LLC does not exist. By giving permission for respondents to put a claim in against ENC the judge appears to have found away to stop any transfered assets from being out-of-bounds. I look forward to the next phase.

  2. Words such as not, stand, on, and legs spring to mind…

  3. and “haven’t”, “got” and “a” of course

  4. Valiant for Truth

    Do we know whether the Brewers had legal representation at this meeting?

  5. An interesting development. bit of analysis on my blog courtersy of….well, myself.

  6. If Phil worked in the store when the staff quit, and “manages” the bookstore chain whilst in the UK, does he have a work permit? In addition, he also “owns” and Internet business, which I am sure he continues to work on whilst in the UK and so, even if he claims he does not get paid for his work with the bookstores, he is certainly making money from his work in the UK on this business. I wonder if the tax people know about this?? Either way, it might be worth a couple of phone calls to Immigration and the Taxman.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s