Do You Suspect Employee Fraud? Lawyers Can Move Fast to Protect You

If your business deals in valuable goods, dishonesty on the part of current or former employees is sadly a threat that cannot be ignored. However, as a High Court case showed, expert lawyers can move extremely fast to investigate such concerns and minimise your losses.

The case concerned…

Mar 18, 2022

The case concerned a company that sourced high-value IT and other equipment for clients. It formed the view that a man who had until recently worked for it as a senior accounts manager was involved in a large-scale fraud. In the name of one of the company’s longstanding customers, he was said to have generated and processed 76 orders for 331 items that were delivered to the address of another man who was believed to be his brother.

Even before proceedings were formally issued, the company swiftly sought an interim injunction against both men. Due to concerns that, if put on the alert, they might take steps to dispose of relevant goods or disperse their assets, the order was applied for without advance notice being given to either man.

Granting the order sought, the Court noted that the company might or might not succeed in proving its case against the men at a full hearing. However, it had an apparently strong case against them. There was evidence that at least one of the items delivered had been sold on an internet auction site and there was reason to believe that, unless restrained, the alleged wrongdoing could continue.

The injunction froze the men’s assets up to a value of £300,000 each. It also forbade them from selling or otherwise disposing of relevant goods and required them to deliver up such goods to the company’s solicitors for safekeeping. The order permitted each of them to spend £750 a week on their ordinary living expenses and the Court emphasised that it remained open to them to apply to the Court for the order to be varied or discharged.

Employment Tribunal Blasts Operations Manager’s ‘Sham’ Redundancy

Employers all too often assert that a worker’s services are no longer needed when the real reason for their dismissal has nothing whatever to do with redundancy. As one case showed, however, employment judges were not born yesterday and are always on the lookout for such shams. The case concerned the former head of operations of an advertising sales company. He worked long hours, often at weekends and during his holidays. He had a difficult relationship with his line manager, however, largely…

Discrimination and the Burden of Proof – Supreme Court Clarifies the Law

Ever since a crucial alteration was made to the wording of the Equality Act 2010, the question of where the burden of proof lies in employment discrimination cases has been the focus of intense legal debate. An important Supreme Court ruling has, however, resolved the issue once and for all. The case concerned a postman who was born in Nigeria and identified as black African and Nigerian. He had qualifications in computing and wished to obtain a managerial or technical role within Royal Mail.…

Engaging a Tradesman? Do You Understand Your Health and Safety Duties?

If a tradesman sustains injury whilst working on a client’s premises, should the client be liable to pay compensation? The High Court pondered that important issue in the case of a builder who fell through a barn roof, suffering catastrophic injuries. The builder, who was in his late 50s, was engaged by a farmer to replace the barn’s guttering. Working alongside his son, he sensibly installed crawler boards so as to spread his weight on the barn’s fragile roof. As his son passed sections of…