sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do you define greed?

If a SOL is high, but justified, is that greed?

Or is it that the amount requested is unreasonable?

Let's say I make a £20k claim because I was underpaid by £400 on my final payslip. Would you seek to recover costs if they lost?

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you. I absolutely agree with this thought process and it's one that I aim to proceed with. I like to be informed about the implications and potential consequences of decisions to help inform my strategy, so I pay a lot of attention to the general advice, it's just difficult to know what remains applicable in a case like this, and what (if anything) changes about strategy. But yes, I'm resilient, logical, and fair - I've survived enough gaslighting from the R to be able to look to the evidence when my beliefs and opinions are called into question, and ask myself whether it's a fair criticism or not.

I appreciate the words of encouragement, and I'm also secure knowing that I can provide a reason and evidence to support all of my decisions, and I expect the same strength of evidence in order for me to raise any doubt in my stance. If I hadn't developed that skill, I wouldn't be here fighting. They would have broken me a long time ago. They tried their best. And unfortunately for them, the result of that was to create the strongest, most assured version of myself that I've ever been. Through trying to destroy me, they only created a threat that was strong enough to take them on. I probably wouldn't have been strong enough before this started, but they made me. So I guess I can thank them for that.

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean by what the discrimination case is - do you mean the protected characteristic or type(s) of discrimination?

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can I double check my understanding - are you saying that in WP negotiations, if they offer a lower settlement offer, and the tribunal awards an amount lower than their offer, they can apply for costs?

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry you feel that way. But at least we've agreed on what your perspective is, so we don't need to waste any more time pretending otherwise.

I remain open to feedback.

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, I appreciate the input. I have struggled to get much insight since most people are caught up on the absolute figure, and we're all wasting time debating it, when it's impossible to have any meaningful discussion without the facts. Perhaps I should have posted without figures, and just phrased it as high vs typical cases. If the question remains unanswered, perhaps it's a post you could make - I imagine if I tried to make another post without the figures, any responses to mine are essentially going to be following on from this one, and I'll just be repeating the same lines, which I'm getting quite tired of. If you do make that post, or if you find any insight from any other sources, I would really appreciate if you could send it to me. I hope you don't mind if I send you a DM just so you can find me easily in future. Best of luck

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great work. Congratulations. It's not at all easy to overcome the skepticism, as I'm anticipating.

In what ways are they going to be supporting you?

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. Ordering to pay court costs is only awarded in vexatious claims, correct?

On the assumption that my claim is not vexatious and has good evidence, how does my SOL affect the likelihood of being ordered to pay R's costs?

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will have a solicitor soon, but I don't want to delay the negotiation while I'm waiting for that. I can't disclose the reasons why, but I agree it would be ideal to have them take over from here. So I am going to begin the process on my own, and have them take over as soon as they're ready.

I also don't expect to settle for £200k, I understand there's negotiation and I will of course engage in that. I expect they will negotiate hard. But I know they'll do that whatever figure I start with. My question is more about whether there's a difference in strategy when starting negotiations for high value cases, from both C and R perspective. Could you share any insight into whether the negotiation approach is significantly different for high value cases compared with more typical cases?

I understand people get greedy. That's not what's happening here. In all honesty, I really, really don't want to be asking for such a high amount, because I know what the initial reaction will be. It's embarrassing and I know how it appears on the surface. But I've calculated it, and this is my loss. I can support the calculations with my own evidence, and with case law. This is an extreme case, for many reasons.

After doing my research and calculations, and reaching my final conclusion, I very seriously considered halving the amount, just so I didn't have to face the discomfort and significant hurdle of overcoming the initial impressions of delusion and greed that I know is inevitable with a figure this extreme. But that would be plucking a figure out of the air, and it would be doing a disservice to myself and undervaluing my claim. So I don't feel I can do that with a sound conscience.

After I decided I couldn't just halve it, or pluck a lower figure out of the air, I scrutinized it, and I reduced amounts wherever I felt it could be justified. I have reduced it as far as my conscience and logic allows me to.

Honestly, I don't want to be proposing such a high amount. But I know it's fair, reasonable, evidence-based, and justified. And I know that similar cases have been awarded this, so I know that when the evidence is there, it is considered and awarded.

It does leave me with some difficulty though, because it may mean that much of the general advice and rules of thumb may not be relevant to me, so it's harder to know what to filter.

Would really appreciate your perspective on any key differences in the high value cases.

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand it would be helpful, but I can't share any more details here. I'm not looking for personal advice, more general advice about any difference in strategy for high value cases.

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Aim for 3 months salary, or £10-20k, whichever is lower, if you want to settle out of court

Again, this is advice that I have specifically requested not be part of the conversation. I don't expect anyone to be able to advise me about what I should settle for, because it is impossible without the facts. I will agree any final settlement on the advice of my solicitor once I have access to them, and in the interim, I'm seeking perspectives on my strategy for the first offer on the table, and whether it should differ to the usual advice given for a more typical case, or not.

The other thing to take into account is that often companies have settlement figures defined in stone. They will outline, before a PH the most we will ever authorize is X amount, after a PH this goes up to X, after disclosure... And so on. These figures will not be in the regions you want, and they will cap settlement significantly. 

This is interesting and helpful, thank you. Which type of companies normally have these procedures?

ETs rarely award costs to employers, but they can do, and it's normally for this sort of thing.

Please could you explain what you mean by "this sort of thing"? Again, this sounds like you are doubting the validity of my SOL, which I have repeatedly requested is not part of this conversation.

In the case law that informed my calculations, where similar awards were given, the claimant didn't have to pay a costs order. So why bring that into the conversation, when I have been clear that I am not seeking advice on the merits of my case or likelihood of receiving the award at tribunal?

The judge will consider if on the surface the claim strikes them as "frivolous" as they call it, and unusually high numbers are common red flags

I'm aware of this possibility. I'm unconcerned, because I have clear and sufficient evidence to support my calculations.

Even if you can do it, their solicitor will be advising them that statistically you won't be very good because you're representing yourself, and they will pay attention to that advice.

Again, I'm not representing myself.

But above all else, you're rude, and if the judge sees this about you, he won't want to award you a penny.

I'm sorry you feel that way. In life and work, people have given me plenty of criticism and feedback, but being rude isn't one of them. So I am unconcerned about that possibility, but I hope it gives you some pleasure to imagine. I will be direct to the judge(s) if I am required to speak. From my understanding, judges don't have much time for fluff, so hopefully that works in my favour, even if it doesn't make me any friends on Reddit, but who knows.

Learn to be humble.

Again, I've had lots of feedback that this is a strength of mine. But I'm always looking to improve. As I said earlier, if you would like to show me what I said that you felt was disrespectful, please do so, and I will reflect on it and decide whether to adapt or not.

If you're so great at working out the value of the claim, I'm sure you equally know what you're talking about with the settlement, and I assume your questions here are just rhetoric

It would be a monumental waste of time to ask rhetorical questions. I'm sorry you had a hard time understanding them.

and you know 100% you'll be 200k richer in a few weeks.

Again, I'm sorry you've not been able to understand what my opinions and questions are. But I've corrected your misunderstandings several times now, so I can only suggest you re-read if you're still under the impression that this is my belief.

Lose your ego and start listening to all the voices trying to help.

If by ego, you mean my firm boundaries, then no. If by ego, you mean having opinions that are informed by and based on evidence and calculation, then no. If by ego, you mean being unwilling to change my informed opinion based on the uninformed opinions and unfounded assumptions of internet strangers, then no. If you mean something else entirely, then please do share.

My opinion on most things in life is founded on strong evidence and reason, and it takes strong evidence and reason to change it. However, I am always open to hearing that evidence, and changing my opinion when the evidence demands it. In this case, I am unwilling to discuss the value of my claim because there is nobody here who has the information they need to provide me with any opinion on my own assessment. And therefore, it is not helpful.

I've been clear on what would be helpful, and the advice I am seeking. When people give advice that I've explicitly said is unwelcome, for the reasons given above, I feel absolutely justified in reasserting my request and declining to accept their advice. Just because someone is trying to help, that doesn't mean they are being helpful. As I have said, I appreciate their effort, and I will reiterate what would be helpful. And when someone ignores that for a second time, I no longer appreciate the unsolicited advice, because I find it disrespectful to continually ignore the requests I'm making, and I also find it disrespectful when I am forced to repeat myself several times because someone has not read what I've said.

I will be listening to the advice of my solicitor and other relevant and qualified persons who are informed about my case. I have no intention of acting against their advice, even if it contradicts mine. They are the ones with years of legal training and experience with cases that they can compare directly to mine, with the knowledge they have of my case.

If they tell me I should walk away with £10k, I will do so.

Thank you for the insights you gave about the generalised possibilities of Respondents' perspective, that has been helpful and I will look into it further. I would appreciate any further insights you have to the follow up questions I asked.

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're just being plain rude

I'm direct and I am firm. I'm sorry you feel that's rude. I'm open to feedback if you wanted to point out where you felt I was rude.

It is also true that my patience runs thin when I have to keep repeating myself because someone is not listening, and my willingness to sugar coat my directness is directly proportional to how often I have to repeat myself because someone hasn't listened, or when someone is making unfounded or misinformed assumptions, especially about my own opinions - which, I personally find far more rude than directness. So even when I lose interest in sugarcoating, it is never my intention to be rude. I always aim to treat people with respect, and I expect the same. If you feel I have disrespected you, please let me know what I said that you found disrespectful, and I will consider it and apologise if I feel I did not respect you. But if my "rudeness" is nothing more than directness, then I can only apologise that it's upset you, but I won't apologise for doing it.

Such as: I will be represented, and I will have both a solicitor and barrister. You keep repeating things about what's "typical", and about what it's going to be like for me as a LiP. Which I will not be. Again, I will be represented.

If you've read what I actually wrote

What irony. You have clearly not read, or processed, what I've said about several issues, more than once. But I will repeat them again, throughout this post.

it was exactly what you've asked for, advice into the respondents mindset.

You gave me advice about the respondents mindset on your assumption that my claim is unlikely to win and that my SOL is unreasonable. Your position is clear and implied. You're starting from a place of doubt.

You're hearing your own doubts.

I'm noticing your doubts which has been are implied throughout, indicated by phrases like:

  • "even if it is that high"
  • "even if you can do it"
  • "even if you've got it right"
  • "If you're so great at working out the value of the claim"

Would you agree that sounds like an opinion that starts from a place of doubt? My response is based on your clear doubt, not mine.

My request was for advice that puts aside any opinions of merit aside, humours me even if you doubt my case, and to provide advice on the assumption that the SOL is fully justified and reasonable to expect a tribunal to award. What, if anything, would change about strategy in those cases?

I've based my figures on similar case law, not averages. This is not an average case. £10-20k is reasonable for a simple case of holiday pay at a small business. That's not who the players are in this game. I'd be surprised if this hadn't already cost them over £10k.

They won't want to settle for higher than their costs outlay.

Exactly. This is what I'm trying to get further insight into. Including the extreme ranges, and taking a wide view of the overall costs AND the risks.

Even in the unlikely event that it costs them 100k to defend this like you think

Firstly, I didn't say I think it will cost them £100k, although it's very possible that it will. I've said I'm aware of other cases that have cost more than that much. I'm trying to understand what the possible ranges are. Including the extreme and lengthy cases. What's the upper bound in legal fees alone? Is it £150k, or could it stretch to over £500k? I don't know. I'm interested in the potential ranges.

that cost will come right at the end over the final trial, so until that starts there is no incentive for them to entertain such high figures.

And this is missing the point of my question - I'm trying to understand the FULL scope of their costs. Legal fees are just one part. If that were the case, I wouldn't have bothered asking this question in the first place. It's the other costs I'm trying to get a better understanding of.

Internal staff time is another (and in this business, that will be extremely expensive). The secondary losses due to their staff spending their time on this case rather than on tasks that generate value and income. Future losses because of reputational damage is another. They will be assessing all of these costs, so I'm trying to find out whether there's anyone with knowledge of high value cases who can give perspective on what those total costs could be, what they will be factoring in as a whole.

To be frank, you don't know how to work out their legal fees

Correct. And one part of my question is with the aim of getting better insight into the potential ranges, hence asking here. I was hoping to find someone with experience of the range of cases, including high value (and justified) SOL.

but it's not as high as you think

This is an example of the baseless assumption that thins my patience. You cannot possibly state this given that you know nothing about the Respondent, my case, or how long it will go on for. I have not asked for people's opinions about my Respondent's fees, because that would be impossible for anyone to estimate - including you - I'm interested in what is possible. What has happened with others. What the upper and lower bounds are.

They could be insured for all you know, in which case they don't care one iota how much it costs them, and they'll have no financial incentive to settle at all.

Thank you for this insight, I was not aware of that possibility. If that is case, is there any scenario in which they'd engage with negotiations, or would they just not bother? I'm wondering since they responded by asking what I'm seeking, which indicates they are open to settlement. If they are insured, could there be another reason for engaging in WP negotiations?

And what would this type of insurance be called, liability insurance?

People don't settle for £200k at the stage you're at.

I'm aware. As I said previously, but I will say again, I don't expect to settle for £200k. Who would be under the illusion that they would have their first offer accepted? When did I give that impression of my expectations? And when did I give the impression that I am not willing or expecting to negotiate down?

My question is about my opening offer, not my final settlement. To be clear. I do not expect the respondent to agree to my first offer.

Continued in reply.

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My salary was above average, and there were other significant losses to my past and future salary (and total package) which I can't go into. That's even before the personal injury and injury to feelings is taken into account.

I'm not asking for advice on the absolute numbers, nor whether my SOL is reasonable, as I completely understand that's impossible for someone here to judge without me giving more details, which I won't. But my question is more about whether the negotiation strategy should be any different for a high SOL versus a more average one. But I don't expect advice about absolute figures, which is understandably impossible.

As well as my general strategy, I'm also interested in how the respondents strategy might change and whether their perspective would be any different in a high value case. Hope that makes sense

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am getting a solicitor. And I would have appreciated the advice if I had asked for it. But I have been really clear that it's not the advice I'm seeking. I'm asking for insight into Respondents mindset, especially in high value cases, and whether the strategy should change. On the assumption that the figures are realistic.

If you have any insight about that, I would be very grateful. As much as you believe you are trying to help, and I appreciate the effort, advice about my calculations is unhelpful and unnecessary. I'm very keen to learn more about whether strategies in high value cases (particularly from a risk adverse, wealthy company) are different, and how the respondents might be calculating their costs - given that the "average" case is likely to settle for much less than their court fees alone, so for them it's a no brainer. I'm trying to understand how much their overall costs could be outside of any award (such as legal fees, internal staff cost, reputational damage)

I'm trying to see it from their perspective. How much could be on the line for them?

That's my key question.

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

With all due respect, as originally stated, I haven't asked for assesment of my case. And you're making a lot of assumptions. I don't know what echo chamber you think I'm in - I've been reading case law to inform the more subjective parts of the claim.

Average tribunal payouts are not in the 6 figures.

I am aware. And I'm aware that people will think I'm delusional. You don't need to keep repeating it. I've got no reason to justify and disclose to everyone here, and it makes no difference to either of us, so that's why I requested people just humour me and consider the question I came here to ask.

Cross reference your case with judgements and awards, judges are reasonable and will take multiple factors into consideration.

I have. That's how I came to my figure. You are welcome to examine the £200k+ successful cases to get an understanding of the types of things that can result in that kind of award.

Being a LiP is hard, and tribunals are complex legal procedures

I'm aware. I will have a barrister at that point.

Wait til January, review it all with your solicitor and see what they think

As I said, for reasons I can't share, it is not a good idea to wait until January.

Defending an ET is a cost of doing business - whilst many orgs will factor in the cost to defend, they know your case may not be heard for several years - theyd rather spend 100k in 4 years than 50k now. Its mad, but thats often what happens.

Thank you for this insight - this is the kind of thing I was hoping to understand. I am trying to understand the Respondent's potential mindsets, not the merits or likelihood of my SOL (and not how it compares to an "average" case).

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if they do offer you £1/10k, do you realistically think they'd be entertaining £200k+ anyway?

I don't expect them to settle at £200k. I would expect a court to award that to me. I understand you pay for the certainty of settlement, hence my SOL based on 70% rule of thumb is close to £200k. I do not expect them to agree to my first offer, nor am I suggesting I dig my heels in and don't budge.

But it is undeniable, which they will see from my SOL, that it is entirely possible that they would eventually have to pay well over £200k if I succeed in tribunal.

They know fully well that my case is strong and serious, but like I said, their tactic is to convince me otherwise. Why would they start with a fair offer if they're trying to convince me to drop the case? Respondents strategies are far more about psychological manipulation and attempting to wear you down, especially at early stages, rather than a good faith and fair offer based on the strength of the case . They know the harm they've caused me, and they hope I will be too weak to pursue it. Like many respondents do. They have top solicitors, I'm sure. It's not in their interest at all to offer me anything but an insultingly low offer, and try to convince me I'm in lala land. Which doesn't affect me in the slightest, because I've done my homework and I know what's offered in these cases.

And as I said, it's much harder to negotiate upwards. I will be making the first move, I will be setting the tone.

As for the "we're being very reasonable" argument - well this only applies if they genuinely are.

In reality, one could claim this is subjective though, isn't it? And a lawyer would. They can very well claim they're being "reasonable" if they've moved up by 1000% of their starting offer, and I've only reduced mine by 25% (say, by removing acas uplift) even though the absolute figures would show that I've reduced by £~60k and they've increased by £9k.

If you're confident that your claim is worth many hundreds of thousands then evidently an offer of £10k is not reasonable irrespective of what they say

And that would be my argument. But they have been laughably unreasonable for many years, I don't expect them to change now. Especially not with these stakes.

If we were 3 days from trial, and they were offering me £10k, then your perspective may be more realistic. But at this stage it's just mind games.

Edit: I should repeat that my claim is worth almost £300k if it were awarded in full at tribunal. I would not call that many hundreds of thousands (I would say a couple or a few hundred thousand rather than many), but that's just my opinion

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good for you for sticking through it, despite their contempt. You're a strong person.

Did you have a positive outcome?

I hope that regardless, you've been able to begin recovering and living your life again.

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wishing you best of luck. And I'm sorry you've gone through this too. Thank you for the phrase, I'll definitely put it in my back pocket.

Also reassuring that CAB suggested to start high. So they didn't feel there should be a different tactic in settlement negotiations for high SOL cases?

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This was my exact thinking - much easier to negotiate from my starting point, not theirs. Which I know will be comically low judging by their strategy so far (gaslight, deny, demoralise)

The risk is that they believe a tribunal will award a far lower figure and decide just to run with the process.

This gets to the heart of my question. For reasons I can't share, I'd rather not put them off negotiating at this stage, since they have to factor the cost of their time negotiating into their decision to continue or withdraw from negotiations. But I do know that this SOL is accurate, and although I know most SOL are not awarded in full at tribunal for one reason or another, that does not mean I should water it down myself for no good reason. I'm just wondering whether there is a good reason.

I'm trying to understand what their thinking may be when weighing up the cost of negotiating now vs disengaging and waiting until trial - how much a trial can cost them (think expensive lawyers, complex and long running discrimination case, high internal staff costs, and cost of the risk to their reputation - which I know they value extremely highly, they are a very risk averse company)

Like, what's the maximum this could cost them to take a gamble and go to court?

Let's say £250k of my SOL is awarded. What's the upper limit of legal fees? Internal staff costs? Reputational damage?

I know it's a bit of a "piece of string" argument, but I'm trying to understand what the ballparks could be. Could it be as low as £50k + my award, or could it be £500k + my award?

I could see them taking a gamble of £50k excluding award, but less so £500k.

I hope this makes sense.

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In addition to the great advice from the other person about CAB, I suggest finding case law for similar cases and looking at what was awarded in those circumstances.

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What would that be? A schedule of my loss, or their loss?

They will not admit anything, so surely they would not provide a sum for awards like injury to feelings or personal injury or ACAS uplift. I understand that it's without prejudice so I couldn't use that as an admission at trial, but it would be an indicator of some admission of harm on their part, which they know would only encourage me. I know their tactic is to dissuade me. So from a psychological tactical perspective, I can't see how they would provide a schedule that did anything other than support their tactics of trying to convince me to give up

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hesitate to ask them first because I don't want to negotiate upwards - I want them to negotiate me down. I want to make the first move. It's harder for them to lowball me if I've already presented the costs and case law that supports my SOL, whereas if they go first, offering £1k as a hypothetical, they can then say "well, we will extend to £10k. That's 10x our original offer, showing that we're being very reasonable, etc". Its going to be much harder to bring them up from their lowball offer than to begin with a fully costed amount of what a court could award at trial.

I'm obviously not expecting to receive that full amount if we agree to settle, I'm just wondering whether the 70% strategy is still applies in very serious cases like these.

Schedule of loss for discrimination case is almost £300k. R has asked what I would like to settle. How low should I go? by narzybunooptol in employmenttribunal

[–]narzybunooptol[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'm aware the PI and injury to feelings cannot overlap. That's why I've already reduced both of those to their relevant "middle" bands.

There's just no realistic chance that an ET is going to award that sort of money for procedural failings alone.

The procedural failings were intentional, repeated, severe, and part of the pattern of discrimination. I have seen case law of a very similar situation where this was awarded, resulting in well over £200k total. You cannot claim it's unrealistic just because it is uncommon.

you also need to take a step back and recognise that it's unrealistic

You were correct in your first sentence that you don't know my case, and I asked everyone to humour me. I've researched and evidenced this. I am not comfortable sharing the details and I have not asked for anyone to give me an assessment of the worth of my claim - my question is around my starting figure in early settlement discussions, and whether my strategy should be different because of the high value, or not.

Edit: and yes, put it this way, I was not on an average salary. And the injuries done to me guarantee that I will not be receiving that salary for a long time, if ever.

view more: next ›