Comments on: I’m Lovin’ It

By: Darren

Darren — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:15:04 +0000

Reuben/Bishop Hill The case described by Bishop Hill is just one of thousands that never get into the headlines nor reach google news. A look at the sort of stories that are found in google news show that the employers who go to court are usually public bodies – NHS/police/local councils etc … rather than private companies. The difference is between ‘other people’s money’ and one’s own money. Another aspect of the stories that do reach the newspapers/google news is that they depend upon some salicious nonsense aspect of a case. A case on google news was about someone using company time and property for their own amusement; in short, theft. However, the story only got to google news because the alleged thief was a lesbian e-mailing her lover … all totally irrelevant but the news report could titilate it’s readers with details of the emails.

By: David Tiley

David Tiley — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 04:05:01 +0000

If we are disturbed about Maccas not suffering as a consequence of this, then clearly the British taxpayer should construct a huge reparations fund. It would pay for all the advertising and public relations the company will need to undo its loss of reputation consequent on deciding to bash a couple of indigents with some pamphlets on a street corner, using the full majesty of the law. They did bring it on themselves, you know.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:00:13 +0000

“McDonald’s spent an estimated £10 million on the trial,” says the NYT. Now, that may well include all their pretrial legal fees, so that a lot of that wouldn’t have to be repeated. But still. A “new trial” turns out to be a huge fine on McDonald’s. Who better, sure, but it’s the principle of the thing.

By: Bishop Hill

Bishop Hill — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:05:50 +0000

Reuben One member of staff at the last company I worked in formally handed in their resignation and then two weeks later sued the company for unfair dismissal. The employee was, of course, funded by legal aid, while the company was clocking up lawyers’ fees at a frightening rate. This led the company to attempt an out of court settlement, as this will almost always be cheaper than going to tribunal, even if you are certain to win, as we were in this case. In this particular instance the employee was ill-advised, and insisted on going to tribunal. The case was thrown out pretty quickly. This didn’t help the company though because costs are almost never awarded against the employee. This is a tax on honest employees in favour of dishonest ones and lawyers.

By: Darren

Darren — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:47:48 +0000

Reuben “I would be interested in seeing examples” if you do a search on google news for unfair dismissal you may get cases that have gone to tribunal. My point is that generally the ex-employee gets legal aid while the ex-employer gets nothing. The result is that the employers are advised by their lawyers not to take the case to court: even though the employer has done nothing wrong – these cases don’t appear on google news and so it is difficult to point to examples.

By: me

me — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 21:06:13 +0000

I think there’s some nonsense being talked here. I can’t see why the taxpayer should have to contribute money to Person A defence if Person B decides to sue them in a civil action. This is a recipe for huge amounts of public money to be thrown away. I also can’t see why the taxplayer should pay compensation to Person B if he wins, but Person A lacks the means to pay. It’s not as if the taxpayer has done anything wrong. “It’s also not a fair result, though, if the corporate plaintiff successfully proves its civil case and substantial damages, but then cannot collect a judgment because the individual defendant lacks any assets.” Why isn’t it fair? The whole basis of the limited liability corporation is that if the boot were on the other foot the individual member of the public wouldn’t be able to collect damages. “As I recall, the McDonald’s libel defendants lacked the basic protection that their allegations were truthful. They did not bother to check these claims in the pamphlets they were distributing. I don’t see why anyone has any sympathy with such woolly-mindedness.” People should be able to talk crap without being sued for it. Are you really suggesting that people shouldn’t be able to distribute books, for example, without bothering to check the claims in the material they are distributing? That’s obviously mad. I’m all for companies not having the right to bring libel actions (in the same way that public bodies can’t). Altering the standard of proof – so that the person being sued doesn’t have to prove their claims are correct, but the person doing the suing has to prove the claims are incorrect – would be a good start.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:57:13 +0000

Note that the ruling in effect penalizes McD’s for its attorney fees in the 1st trial—-god knows those must’ve been over $1 million, if I heard right that the trial alone went about a year. Think what you will of McD’s, but that’s a pretty raw result for an outcome that wasn’t their fault (legally speaking). Should the government have to reimburse McD’s its bill from the 1st trial?

By: reuben

reuben — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:34:50 +0000

Darren I would be interested in seeing examples of this “huge loss of justice being found within uk employment law”. The way you describe it, it sounds like a truly unfair system. At the same time, though, your choice of words seems a bit loaded (individuals “attack” rather than “sue” or some similiar term; companies “defend” instead of, eg, “fight back”). So examples would be great. Cheers

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:49:21 +0000

It’s also not a fair result, though, if the corporate plaintiff successfully proves its civil case and substantial damages, but then cannot collect a judgment because the individual defendant lacks any assets. Perhaps the UK should also establish a fund to pay the civil judgments of indigent defendants.

By: Scott Martens

Scott Martens — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:37:57 +0000

Andrew, The ECHR has certainly not required parity of legal resources, but it has rightly noted that the discrepancy between the resources of McDonald’s and the resources of defendants who have to defend themselves because they have been refused aid is enough to constitute a lack of fairness. I note that few public defenders offices have the same resources available to prosecutors, and yet the right to a lawyer paid by the state is guaranteed in criminal cases as a matter of basic rights. I doubt the legal aid the ECHR says the UK should have provided would have come to anywhere near as much as McDonald’s legal bills. The court decided that the discrepancy between nothing and a whole hell of a lot is too much; it is likely that the difference between something and a whole hell of a lot would not necessarily produce the same decision.

By: Andrew Boucher

Andrew Boucher — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:41:49 +0000

“So the UK is now obligated to spend nearly as much money as McDonald’s is willing to spend ?” Let me add that what bothers me about this, is that the money spent on lawyers will only increase. I would prefer something more like: (a) a restriction on how much McDonald’s can spend when suing private citizens; or (b) the judge or jury taking into account the different level of resources, in determining their judgment.

By: Darren

Darren — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:31:53 +0000

“Yes, UK employment law: notorious for favouring the worker. Companies: notorious for not having any money.” err … like Sally’s Hair salon has got the same legal budget as McDonald’s. Yet both are treated the same by the state with regard to legal aid in terms of employment law etc … If that is how you see the world I don’t suppose that I can convince you otherwise.

By: john b

john b — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:16:00 +0000

This results in the huge disparity of the state (via the ex-employee) attacking the individual (in the form of the employer). The resources that each command for attack and defence are massively disproportionate resulting in a huge loss of justice being found within uk employment law. Yes, UK employment law: notorious for favouring the worker. Companies: notorious for not having any money. For God’s sake, where do you find these mentalists?

By: Andrew Boucher

Andrew Boucher — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:07:02 +0000

” and that the trial was not fair because of this disparity in resources between the plaintiff and the defendant…” So the UK is now obligated to spend nearly as much money as McDonald’s is willing to spend ?

By: Darren

Darren — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:48:23 +0000

“As an American lawyer, I find the notion that there is a fundamental human right to public funds for the defense of a civil action deeply weird.” One of the inequities of the manner in which employment law is conducted in the uk is the disparity between the manner in which an employee and employer are treated. Generally, employees tend to get legal aid (state hand-out) to attack the employer (unfair dismisal case etc ..) but employers don’t get any legal aid (state hand-out) to defend themselves. This results in the huge disparity of the state (via the ex-employee) attacking the individual (in the form of the employer). The resources that each command for attack and defence are massively disproportionate resulting in a huge loss of justice being found within uk employment law.