no intention to harras or go to court for a written undertaking

[CaptainJ]

A friend of mine has left and lost 4 jobs because of his ex partner phoning his employers and making malicious statements.
A solicitor letter was sent to her asking her to sign an undertaking not to do this again.
She has declined to sign an undertaking on the grounds that her solicitors letter states she has no intention of contacting another employer.
She has further stated if he takes her to court to get her to sign an undertaking she will challenge this and apply costs to him.
She has received a police warning but we are not sure if her " no intention" would stand up in a court of law of she does it again.

We are seeking a barristers opinion but would be interested to get your views. I find it incredulous that she is refusing and threatening she will apply costs and defend herself in court. A judge may decide she has said she has no intention of doing this again.

[staffordian]

It seems strange that four employers could sack someone who has done nothing wrong.

Could your friend not sue them for wrongful dismissal if they simply sacked someone on unsubstantiated third party claims?

Staffordian

[redsturgeon]

It seems strange that four employers could sack someone who has done nothing wrong.

Could your friend not sue them for wrongful dismissal if they simply sacked someone on unsubstantiated third party claims?

Staffordian

If you have worked for an employee for less than two years then you have very few situations that you can successfully challenge. Also the OP doesn't say they were sacked.

John

[melonfool]

It seems strange that four employers could sack someone who has done nothing wrong.

Could your friend not sue them for wrongful dismissal if they simply sacked someone on unsubstantiated third party claims?

Staffordian

If you have worked for an employee for less than two years then you have very few situations that you can successfully challenge. Also the OP doesn't say they were sacked.

John

There are over 70 reasons for bringing claims under the two year rule, so I would challenge the 'very few' but yes, in essence, you cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim - but you can bring wrongful dismissal which is what the post you quoted mentioned, that doesn't have the 2 year bar.

But, you are correct that the post specifically did NOT say the person was dismissed. Having been an employer (well, the advisor to an employer) in this situation, generally employers don't usually take any notice of this stuff, so he needs to stop leaving jobs because of it. If he is leaving then it's not *her* who is causing him to lose the jobs, is it?

Mel

[CaptainJ]

It would be most helpful if my question was answered.
I am not asking about dismissal.
I agree my post is somewhat misleading. My friend did not lose his job but his ex caused so much embarrassment he declined to go forward.
It would be helpful if someone answered the question and not make assumptions about the situation as this is not what I am asking.

[Clitheroekid]

We are seeking a barristers opinion but would be interested to get your views. I find it incredulous that she is refusing and threatening she will apply costs and defend herself in court. A judge may decide she has said she has no intention of doing this again.

She is talking nonsense.

The solicitor's letter should have said that if she didn't sign the undertaking your friend would seek an injunction against her under the provisions of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. If it didn't they should send a letter now to that effect.

The letter should also make it clear that as well as the injunction your friend would also be seeking damages (financial compensation) and recovery of the legal costs that he had been forced to spend to obtain the injunction.

An injunction is a court order not to harass your friend. If she disobeys it she's in contempt of court and can be sent to prison.

It's very common for an application for an injunction to be issued but settled by way of the defendant (her in this case) providing an undertaking to the court in the terms sought - an injunction by consent if you like. The advantage of this is that unlike the undertaking that's been requested (which, even if given, is just personal between her and your friend) an undertaking to the court has the same legal force as an actual injunction.

Whether an application should actually be made would obviously depend on the strength of the evidence, how likely he thinks it is that she will do it again and whether she is financially able to pay the costs. Injunction applications aren't cheap, and unless your friend can afford not to bother about recovering his costs there's generally no prospect of recovering any costs from someone who's on benefits or in a minimum wage job.

Without knowing more details I can't say what the effect of the letter from her solicitors would be. But if his solicitors asked for a general non-harassment undertaking and she's simply said she won't contact his employers that's not enough, and would offer her no defence at all.

[CaptainJ]

Clitheroekid

Many thanks for your input. Much appreciated.