|
||||||||
Ex-Apprentice winner Stella English sues Alan Sugar (& has now lost) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#151 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London
Posts: 906
|
Quote:
I always thought the prize was a 1 year conreact job at £100,000, not a permie job.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#152 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 5,981
|
Doh - you've changed the thread title and given the result away. I was going to watch it on the news later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#153 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: East London
Posts: 25,845
|
Quote:
I thought Stella came across as a decent sort when watching the programme. And, someone who genuinely wanted to advance her career after creating one from scratch. So a token job would not have had much appeal.
Alan Sugar is slagging her off now, but, where was his discernment when he offered her the job? And, maybe that is all she wanted - the job she was supposed to have had. ....that said, I do wonder if Stella is visiting the Bridge Café this morning... |
|
|
|
|
|
#154 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Herts
Posts: 17,003
|
Quote:
Exactly. The £100,000 salary is the prize for winning The Apprentice and after a year you are released from the contract. Unfortunately Stella English actually believed the job was real, which reveals an astonishingly high level of naivety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#155 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,008
|
Judge was probably Alans mate
|
|
|
|
|
|
#156 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,106
|
if there was thr slightest chance of her winning it would never have got to court, it would have been dealt with. Looks like she threatened him and he said carry on. I am sure hes not belligerent enough to go through a court case if his lawyer thought she had a case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#157 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,484
|
Quote:
if there was thr slightest chance of her winning it would never have got to court, it would have been dealt with. Looks like she threatened him and he said carry on. I am sure hes not belligerent enough to go through a court case if his lawyer thought she had a case.
only read 24 out of 27 pages..... but incredibly biased towards LORD Sugar http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...ld-grp-ltd.pdf Having said that, she was incredibly ill advised to go through with it, I took on my fomer employers (major High Street Bank) to Employment Tribunal... the 'dirty tricks' that go on is utterly soul destroying which is what they want in an effort to get you to drop it... my former employers settled at the 11th hour but it was tortuous.... She would have been better to play out the year, and 'trade' off the experience for future business ventures.... Harsh lesson for her..... |
|
|
|
|
|
#158 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,346
|
Quote:
or confident it would be 'dealt with' in their favour....
only read 24 out of 27 pages..... but incredibly biased towards LORD Sugar http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...ld-grp-ltd.pdf Having said that, she was incredibly ill advised to go through with it, I took on my fomer employers (major High Street Bank) to Employment Tribunal... the 'dirty tricks' that go on is utterly soul destroying which is what they want in an effort to get you to drop it... my former employers settled at the 11th hour but it was tortuous.... She would have been better to play out the year, and 'trade' off the experience for future business ventures.... Harsh lesson for her..... Don't bite the hand that feeds you! |
|
|
|
|
|
#159 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,484
|
Quote:
I think this was a very harsh lesson to those you are in very fortunate positions but become greedy.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#160 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
I rarely side with a big company over an individual in a case like this, but in this case I am certainly on Sugar's side against Stella. What I think Stella didn't understand is that the programme is called The Apprentice. That means it is for people who are still learning, not for people who already know it all - so her claim that she was an overpaid tea girl is a bit stupid really. Watching Stella on the programme, I would say that she was completely overqualified for the position, and I'm baffled as to why he gave her the job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#161 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Billingshurst
Posts: 484
|
Stella seemed to be one of the more streetwise and sensible contestants on the apprentice so I wa surprised she ended up in this mess but certainly not surprised about the outcome.
She hasn't come well out of this and probably now regrets going on to the show. |
|
|
|
|
|
#162 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
or confident it would be 'dealt with' in their favour....
only read 24 out of 27 pages..... but incredibly biased towards LORD Sugar http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resource...ld-grp-ltd.pdf Having said that, she was incredibly ill advised to go through with it, I took on my fomer employers (major High Street Bank) to Employment Tribunal... the 'dirty tricks' that go on is utterly soul destroying which is what they want in an effort to get you to drop it... my former employers settled at the 11th hour but it was tortuous.... She would have been better to play out the year, and 'trade' off the experience for future business ventures.... Harsh lesson for her..... |
|
|
|
|
|
#163 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,514
|
Quote:
Agree with BIB. I suspect there are grounds for appeal. However it did strike me that her case did seem week and I can't understand how Sugar's lawyers didn't get it kicked out before a trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#164 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,484
|
Quote:
Agree with BIB. I suspect there are grounds for appeal. However it did strike me that her case did seem week and I can't understand how Sugar's lawyers didn't get it kicked out before a trial.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/...ppeals/appeals will be interesting to see if she does, I wonder if more or less accusing her of lying would constitute 'flaws in the legal reasoning'? One things for sure, she needs a damned sight better legal team than she had before.... and who would pay for an appeal? ... wonder if she was in a 'union'..... I was lucky, they paid my legal fees (until the other side re-imbursed them )
|
|
|
|
|
|
#165 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
I'd agree with that.
As is so often the case on DS, it seems like it was more a case of people supporting one thing simply because they don't like the other thing at all rather than because the issue actually has any merit. |
|
|
|
|
|
#166 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Can I just point out that other than Stella, I don't believe any of the other winners ever had a bad word to say about Sugar or his companies, even winners who didn't work out like Michelle and Yasmina? (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#167 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,484
|
Quote:
Can I just point out that other than Stella, I don't believe any of the other winners ever had a bad word to say about Sugar or his companies, even winners who didn't work out like Michelle and Yasmina? (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21717377 and they're obviously shrewd enough to keep any grievances they may have had to themselves... |
|
|
|
|
|
#168 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
not many of them hang around him for long by the look of it... but in fairness, I guess that's not what its about...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21717377 and they're obviously shrewd enough to keep any grievances they may have had to themselves... I wouldn't expect everyone to be as vocal as Stella, but I think the fact that she is the only one who has said anything bad about Sugar at all speaks volumes. Even if they weren't going to publicly air grievances, you would think someone would have said 'Lord Sugar and I have a different approach and didn't see eye to eye' or something like that at some point, if there had been any grievances. All of the comments I have seen from other winners have been nothing but positive. |
|
|
|
|
|
#169 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
|
Quote:
I rarely side with a big company over an individual in a case like this, but in this case I am certainly on Sugar's side against Stella. What I think Stella didn't understand is that the programme is called The Apprentice. That means it is for people who are still learning, not for people who already know it all - so her claim that she was an overpaid tea girl is a bit stupid really. Watching Stella on the programme, I would say that she was completely overqualified for the position, and I'm baffled as to why he gave her the job.
There's an implication throughout that the job is significant. The salary suggests that anyway, but its clearly stated in the early series. In series 3 he even talks at the interview stage about having someone experienced enough to take on a major role in the organisation, as he is getting older. He says he doesn't know that he wants the bother of teaching someone or supervising them. That logically suggests a role that the younger apprentice like candidate can't fulfil and that needs experience and is given power and autonomy. Its not at all clear if he means what he says, but thats what he says. its also why he says he gets rid of some people. Its what I would pick up if I was applying. However, the problem is that who wins often follows all sorts of different criteria. In series one he picks someone who is steady, non controversial, and inexperienced - over more successful people on task with stronger CVs. He ends up with the most apprenticeship friendly candidate. - although by then he hasn't much choice left. In series two, he picks someone with a decent show record and comparable success already, who also fits the requirements of the job in hand to set something new up. As in series 1, the winner also has a life journey story. In series 3 ,we leave the final task pre-interviews with Simon getting almost everything wrong, Naomi going to save him, and Kristina damaged. We then have interviews that flip from only Katie and Kristina being identified as fully formed people who can run something on their own, to Kristina and Simon being the people who need someone to help them to the next stage in their career most. He then flips again to giving the job to Simon, despite a weaker show record - either because he is the one who can be the apprentice Lord Sugar said he didn't want the week before, or because he fits the job on offer better. There's total randomness going on there whether the job goes to the one who needs it most, or the apprentice who is at a stage to learn, or the one who who is fully formed and ready to go independantly, or the one who fits by experience , accent or manner, the job at hand. Depending on what the criteria of the moment are , you can go home early, or win, for having or not having the same merits. By the time he gets to Stella's year, he doesn't even seem to have those criteria left. She is, as you say, not an inexperienced apprentice , nor is there seemingly a job for someone more experienced to manage independantly, or one to set up some new business. The job doesn't require particular skills or accents.She's just more capable than Chris, and he's disposed of the most capable highflyer, and the younger potential apprentice types, before the final. By the next year, he's given up offering a job at all, and started looking for an entrepreneurial idea that never comes, or if it does, doesn't make the final at all......... |
|
|
|
|
|
#170 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,305
|
I've read the whole judgment (I'm a lawyer - I am not sure whether that makes it less sad or more so!).
I don't think the decision was at all biased; in fact it looked pretty correct to me. Stella might have thought the job was a waste of time, effectively non-existent, that she wasn't appreciated, that the TV show didn't reflect reality and that people didn't always communicate in the best possible way that they could with her - but none of those things give her a winnable case at an employment tribunal. Any job is basically a trade-off between inconvenience and hassle in exchange for an acceptable amount of money and if you can enjoy the work and feel valued then so much the better. When that "bonus" in the form of job satisfaction and appreciation doesn't arise, it's not actionable. If an employer is fulfilling their duties and not mistreating employees then that is that. And I can't really see what Lord Sugar or his companies and team did wrong other than possibly not living up to the picture painted by the TV show. They abided by the letter of Stella's contract which is all they (like any employer) need to do. They arranged for her to go from Viglen to YouView (which she seemed to like more), and continued to pay her the £100,000 salary even though that appears to have been very high pay within YouView as a business. If you look at the judgment, Stella claims at one point she was "reprimanded"; really all that happened was someone seemed to tell her that he didn't agree with a point she had made in an email and didn't like how she had expressed it. Stella says it was humiliating and degrading for her to have to report to a particular colleague who she considered more junior; the tribunal thought the guy actually had quite a lot of experience that Stella could learn from. And so on. For the tribunal to actually say (as they do in closing) that the claim should never have been brought is pretty strong language. Sometimes these decisions are in the balance, but they are unequivocal here. |
|
|
|
|
|
#171 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,484
|
Quote:
I've read the whole judgment (I'm a lawyer - I am not sure whether that makes it less sad or more so!).
I don't think the decision was at all biased; in fact it looked pretty correct to me. Stella might have thought the job was a waste of time, effectively non-existent, that she wasn't appreciated, that the TV show didn't reflect reality and that people didn't always communicate in the best possible way that they could with her - but none of those things give her a winnable case at an employment tribunal. Any job is basically a trade-off between inconvenience and hassle in exchange for an acceptable amount of money and if you can enjoy the work and feel valued then so much the better. When that "bonus" in the form of job satisfaction and appreciation doesn't arise, it's not actionable. If an employer is fulfilling their duties and not mistreating employees then that is that. And I can't really see what Lord Sugar or his companies and team did wrong other than possibly not living up to the picture painted by the TV show. They abided by the letter of Stella's contract which is all they (like any employer) need to do. They arranged for her to go from Viglen to YouView (which she seemed to like more), and continued to pay her the £100,000 salary even though that appears to have been very high pay within YouView as a business. If you look at the judgment, Stella claims at one point she was "reprimanded"; really all that happened was someone seemed to tell her that he didn't agree with a point she had made in an email and didn't like how she had expressed it. Stella says it was humiliating and degrading for her to have to report to a particular colleague who she considered more junior; the tribunal thought the guy actually had quite a lot of experience that Stella could learn from. And so on. For the tribunal to actually say (as they do in closing) that the claim should never have been brought is pretty strong language. Sometimes these decisions are in the balance, but they are unequivocal here. I personally found some of the wording throughout the judgement to be very biased, I cant be bothered to go back over all 27 pages, but I recoiled a few times when I felt that the wording was basically accusing Ms English of being a liar, if I recall quite a few times they took the word of LORD Sugar and his staff over Ms English and emphatically stated so.... Ultimately I feel she was incredibly ill advised |
|
|
|
|
|
#172 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,305
|
It isn't bias where the court believes the evidence of certain witnesses over that from other witnesses, though. Bias is where a case is decided on a reason other than on the evidence before the court or tribunal. I can't see a reason why the tribunal would be biased in this way; they have nothing to gain, and a lot to lose. The court seemed to find Alan Sugar and his staff more reliable in their accounts than Stella English. That's the kind of decision they are supposed to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#173 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
Thats been an inherent clash though in the programme from the start (nearly finished reviewing series 3 currently) Its never been presented as a show for lower level management trainees though.
There's an implication throughout that the job is significant. The salary suggests that anyway, but its clearly stated in the early series. In series 3 he even talks at the interview stage about having someone experienced enough to take on a major role in the organisation, as he is getting older. He says he doesn't know that he wants the bother of teaching someone or supervising them. That logically suggests a role that the younger apprentice like candidate can't fulfil and that needs experience and is given power and autonomy. Its not at all clear if he means what he says, but thats what he says. its also why he says he gets rid of some people. Its what I would pick up if I was applying. However, the problem is that who wins often follows all sorts of different criteria. In series one he picks someone who is steady, non controversial, and inexperienced - over more successful people on task with stronger CVs. He ends up with the most apprenticeship friendly candidate. - although by then he hasn't much choice left. In series two, he picks someone with a decent show record and comparable success already, who also fits the requirements of the job in hand to set something new up. As in series 1, the winner also has a life journey story. In series 3 ,we leave the final task pre-interviews with Simon getting almost everything wrong, Naomi going to save him, and Kristina damaged. We then have interviews that flip from only Katie and Kristina being identified as fully formed people who can run something on their own, to Kristina and Simon being the people who need someone to help them to the next stage in their career most. He then flips again to giving the job to Simon, despite a weaker show record - either because he is the one who can be the apprentice Lord Sugar said he didn't want the week before, or because he fits the job on offer better. There's total randomness going on there whether the job goes to the one who needs it most, or the apprentice who is at a stage to learn, or the one who who is fully formed and ready to go independantly, or the one who fits by experience , accent or manner, the job at hand. Depending on what the criteria of the moment are , you can go home early, or win, for having or not having the same merits. By the time he gets to Stella's year, he doesn't even seem to have those criteria left. She is, as you say, not an inexperienced apprentice , nor is there seemingly a job for someone more experienced to manage independantly, or one to set up some new business. The job doesn't require particular skills or accents.She's just more capable than Chris, and he's disposed of the most capable highflyer, and the younger potential apprentice types, before the final. By the next year, he's given up offering a job at all, and started looking for an entrepreneurial idea that never comes, or if it does, doesn't make the final at all......... |
|
|
|
|
|
#174 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
It isn't bias where the court believes the evidence of certain witnesses over that from other witnesses, though. Bias is where a case is decided on a reason other than on the evidence before the court or tribunal. I can't see a reason why the tribunal would be biased in this way; they have nothing to gain, and a lot to lose. The court seemed to find Alan Sugar and his staff more reliable in their accounts than Stella English. That's the kind of decision they are supposed to make.
I still don't understand how the case got so far if it had so little merit. |
|
|
|
|
|
#175 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,305
|
Quote:
For me it was stating things as fact because the believed Lord Sugar's version. I thought a fact was something that happened rather than the most likely course of an event.
I still don't understand how the case got so far if it had so little merit. The case got so far because Stella English and her lawyers pursued it and Alan Sugar refused to back down. Many of these cases settle out of court with a payment to the claimant to make it go away. Alan Sugar made it clear he wanted to defend the action and was prepared to see the court case through. Many respondents do not want the publicity or hassle. AS has commented to the effect that he believes some of these tribunal cases are without merit but are pursued because claimants see their chance to make some money. He has made some comments about Ms English's lawyers too that imply he felt he was pursued because of his money and status. There is an implication by the tribunal in their judgment that Ms English was badly advised but she was obviously keen to see it through and AS felt the same. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:09.




I personally found some of the wording throughout the judgement to be very biased, I cant be bothered to go back over all 27 pages, but I recoiled a few times when I felt that the wording was basically accusing Ms English of being a liar, if I recall quite a few times they took the word of LORD Sugar and his staff over Ms English and emphatically stated so....