You might also be interested in
Replies (15)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Sensible decision
Based on the facts of the case (insofar as we know them) this seems a very sensible decision about where the line is drawn between employment and self employment.
Drugs
Behind Stringfellows' initial "dismissal" were drugs allegations. Whether she was employed or self-employed they were entitled to sever the working relationship.
Employee Disciplinary Procedures
Behind Stringfellows' initial "dismissal" were drugs allegations. Whether she was employed or self-employed they were entitled to sever the working relationship.
They may ultimately ge able to end their relationship but for an employee there procedures to be followed to try to establish that the disciplinary offence actually happened on the balance of probability.
Life's too complicated
Let's go back to the good old days when an employer can employ or dismiss as he pleases based on performance given it is he/she that takes all of the financial risks . Employees to be paid for doing what you are supposed to do . Get rid of all this red tape and bureaucracy so that employers are not scared to employ and we might start moving the economy forward ?
Drugs
Can't agree that if she had been employed the club could dismiss her. The allegations were not proven, the above only stating that it was 'believed she had become involved with drugs on the premises'. Without proving the case she would surely have been wrongfully dismissed.
Drugs
That did occur to me after I had posted and, of course, we know nothing about the allegations and whether there was any truth in them.
I suppose that, like in my company, such allegations against an employee would be swiftly examined by the management and, if appropriate, the employee dismissed. If someone is self-employed perhaps the level of proof required is lower although could there be a libel claim if the dancer denies the allegations?
Question
That did occur to me after I had posted and, of course, we know nothing about the allegations and whether there was any truth in them.
I suppose that, like in my company, such allegations against an employee would be swiftly examined by the management and, if appropriate, the employee dismissed. If someone is self-employed perhaps the level of proof required is lower although could there be a libel claim if the dancer denies the allegations?
Surely her name is only in the press (and linked to drug allegations) because she created a court case (rightly or wrongly)? Can you libel someone if the only reason you said 'we suspected she was on drugs' is because you were defending yourself in court?
Serious question.
Question
My libel comment was slightly tongue in cheek. I don't know where the drugs allegation was first made but if it was at the point of initially parting company and it was made in the presence of others then is libel (or slander) possible? As I understand it (and I am not an expert) comments do not have to be published in the press or other national media to be libel.
People far more versed in libel law than me will no doubt have a better opinion.
This case is already more complicated than it needs to be so the thought of introducing libel amused me.
@JS do keep up John!
if you look back to Quotes of the Year
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/2012-quotes-year/535511
you will see that i mentioned Quashie Quashed on 31/12/2012
i await my claritax book prize or voucher from Jessops!
Libel in evidence
Any witness in court proceedings can never be sued for libel or slander based upon the evidence which he / she gives in court.
The public interest in protecting a witness and encouraging him / her to speak freely is deemed more powerful than the public interest in protecting the reputation of a person mentioned in court. Also having a different rule might lead to endless litigation because there could be litigation about what witnesses said in the previous round of litigation, and it would never end!
It used to be the case that NO litigation could be started about what any witness said or produced as evidence in court - but that rule has recently been modified by the Supreme Court. (The case was Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 - I have blogged about it HERE.)
So now if an expert witness who is being paid to give an expert opinion is found to be negligent he is liable in damages for losses suffered by his client as a consequence of his negligence. In effect that brings the position of an expert witness in litigation into line with that of a professional person advising his client in everyday business and professional life.
But even an expert witness is still immune from any action for libel or slander based on his / her evidence in court.
So if in evidence I say my client has smelly feet (when he does not) there is nothing he can do about that. But if I say in evidence that his business was worthless before the fire that burned down his factory and closed the business (and my opinion on that is negligent and wrong) then the client can sue me for the additional payout which he would have received from his insurer if I had given correct evidence.
David
Professor
The Professor to whom you refer is Sir Roy Meadow who acted as an expert witness (normally instructed by the prosecution) in a number of infant cot death cases in which there had been allegations of infanticide. It is suggested that he unintentionally misled juries and courts as a result of straying outside his area of (medical) expertise and falling into a fallacy about repeated cot deaths in families and the inferences properly to be drawn from that repetition regarding the likelihood of foul play.
Undoubtedly that was damaging to the reputation of expert witnesses in court.
But it is also fair to point out that the latest change in the law follows on from a similar removal of immunity for barristers (which happened in 2001) and stems directly from a civil law case rather than a criminal case.
The Jones v Kaney case concerned the evidence of a psychologist giving an opinion on the adverse effects (including post traumatic stress disorder) suffered by a claimant in a personal injury case (he was a motor cyclist who had been injured in a road traffic accident).
It was alleged that the psychologist negligently signed an expert witness statement (to be used in the legal proceedings) in which she apparently conceded that the injured claimant was deceptive and deceitful in reporting his symptoms when, in fact, the psychologist was not actually of that opinion (but had felt under some pressure to sign). That apparent concession undermined the claimant's case for substantial damages.
The issue in law was whether the injured claimant could sue the psychologist for negligently signing a statement with which she did not agree - or whether she was protected by witness immunity.
The Supreme Court held that the injured man was in law entitled to sue the psychologist, acting as an expert witness, for her alleged negligence to recover from her (and her PI insurers) the additional amount which he ought to have been able to recover from the insurers covering the other driver.
David
@David
thanks i was being unusually benevolent in not naming Sir (sic) Roy it must be the mountain air - what really stuck in my craw was his abuse of statistics, and was it really unintentional or did he get carried away by his own hubris?. Panajandrums often do.