DS Forums

 
 

Lord Sugar sues Stella for £35,000 in legal costs


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-06-2013, 01:44
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
But they are not..... And all the evidence shows that , so the point on when you base the suppositions in your post are flawed.
Do you now accept she is likely to be being less than honest and had a reason to do it?
No, because a) I haven't seen any evidence that tribunals aren't biased in favour of the employers and won't take your word without seeing evidence and b) the points in my post aren't based on that supposition, as you'll see if you re-read it; they're based on what I saw of Stella on the show and the lack of any need to scam Sugar (which you haven't produced any argument against)
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 09-06-2013, 07:35
lammtarra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 900
Notwithstanding whether Lord Sugar has the right to claim costs, his actually doing so does seem unfair and disproportionate.
lammtarra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 08:13
Tassium
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
Does Sugar have PR advisor's?

Pretty obvious he really is an arse rather than acting the role.
Tassium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 08:25
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
From what I gather they never see him, maybe once or twice a year . They usually work under one of his managers .
Of course they do. That really doesn't surprise me; what is wrong with that? Sugar has other things to do apart from personally mentoring his apprentices. It is never stated on the show that they work with him personally on a regular basis. I would have thought that was obvious.

Also, I've been thinking about why Stella thought that it was worthwhile suing him... I remember her saying on the programme that she has got everything that she has ever wanted in life. She said it sounds ridiculous, but if you can get into that mindset, you have the motivation to go and get anything that you want. I suppose if that has been the case, she probably would have assumed that the same could be said for winning this court case against Sugar.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 12:34
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
Yeah, but you'd think someone would have said something that implied it, even if they didn't say it outright. You'd think someone would have said something like, 'I respect Lord Sugar, but we have different styles and didn't see eye to eye on a lot of things' or something along those lines. As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), out of eleven winners, ten of them have never said anything about Sugar that is negative in any way.
Agreed. Here's what Michelle has said:
So how did your leaving come about?

We were going to offer a service to a consumer so that if you have an old telly you pay us and we'll collect and recycle it. Unfortunately we didn't make provision for the fact that consumers already get that service for free, or they will once a new regulation is implemented. There was nowhere for us to find our niche and to set up as a business. Which left me in a bit of a predicament. I was given other jobs to do within Amstrad and I just sat there and I thought the process that I went through versus what I was given at the end didn't correlate. I didn't feel like I was being challenged, I didn't feel like I was stretching myself and I didn't feel like I was progressing. I just decided the right thing for me to do was to develop myself and leave. Which is what I did.

So the job isn't what it's cracked up to be?

Within a few weeks it was quite clear there wasn't the opportunity that everybody had hoped for and thought. I'd been self-employed and I'd earned a lot of money, a lot more than what he was paying me. I went through this massive, intense process, and then it was like, uh? But there wasn't a fall-out.

Have you burned your bridges with Alan Sugar?

No, not at all.
So not only did the original project fall through, but when that happened there wasn't much else for her. I don't know whether Bordan Tkachuk did tell Stella the job wasn't real, but Michelle's account seems to confirm there weren't a lot of real opportunities.

However, Michelle is careful not to criticise Lord Sugar himself, and is explicitly not burning bridges. If Stella were more canny, she'd have followed Michelle's example. Any mature business person would.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 13:15
Toggler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,219
With regard to costs at Employment Tribunal we normally ask at the outset for costs to be awarded if we win, it's standard practice. Her lawyers will no doubt have asked the same.

Stella may have had good legal advice but not taken it, or gone for a 'punt' to see what she could get.

It seems not a lot and a ruined career reputation into the bargain.
Toggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 14:17
Venetian
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central London
Posts: 8,281
LAS didn't ask Stella to take legal action against him, but he has had to pay to defend himself. It's not unreasonable to try to recover costs what you never wanted to pay in the first place is it?

Stella's legal team doesn't seem to have done her any favours, was her action ever gonna succeed, does not seem likely. Whatever happened to the balance of probabilities?
Venetian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2013, 08:55
SaraV1308
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Strictly Central
Posts: 9,589
I personally think its more of a warning to another candidate and any legal team against suing where the opponent might be "embarrassed" by a claim.

I suspect Stella's legal team thought ok let's have a punt at this. Probably he will give some settle money to go away. Seeing LAS didn't and decided to defend the claim, his now suing/claiming his costs is just a shut out bid to stop anyone else doing it.

Well that's my opinion anyway.
SaraV1308 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2013, 18:33
fredster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,463
I personally think its more of a warning to another candidate and any legal team against suing where the opponent might be "embarrassed" by a claim.

I suspect Stella's legal team thought ok let's have a punt at this. Probably he will give some settle money to go away. Seeing LAS didn't and decided to defend the claim, his now suing/claiming his costs is just a shut out bid to stop anyone else doing it.

Well that's my opinion anyway.
She took a gamble and lost, yes, she should pay AS his fees. Its a warning to people who are quick to go for unfair dismissal.
The case should not have gone to court and she was badly advised.
fredster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2013, 20:23
Sweet FA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In my Opinion
Posts: 10,057
Serves her right - no sympathy whatsoever.
Sweet FA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 08:12
Damanda
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 33,270
No, because a) I haven't seen any evidence that tribunals aren't biased in favour of the employers and won't take your word without seeing evidence and b) the points in my post aren't based on that supposition, as you'll see if you re-read it; they're based on what I saw of Stella on the show and the lack of any need to scam Sugar (which you haven't produced any argument against)
You don't have to take my word for, you can check easily.

Your points most certainly are based on that incorrect supposition, perhaps you should reread it.
Damanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 14:33
chris_miles1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 55
The awesome power of the Sugar shines on!

Future applicants beware!!

haha
chris_miles1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 14:56
Joyce_Egg
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: 9 on my ignor list
Posts: 134
your fired

Joyce_Egg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 00:27
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
You don't have to take my word for, you can check easily.

Your points most certainly are based on that incorrect supposition, perhaps you should reread it.
How can I check easily whether tribunals are biased in favour of employers? It doesn't seem at all like something that it would be possible to collect reliable data on.

As for your second paragraph, I can only say again, re-read my post. If you do so, and you still hold that my comments about the impression Stella made on me on the show and on her financial situation rely on my supposition about the bias of tribunals, then you are either stupid or a liar.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 00:34
george.millman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
How can I check easily whether tribunals are biased in favour of employers? It doesn't seem at all like something that it would be possible to collect reliable data on.
I think what the other person meant was that the exact details of the case are public information, so you can read them. If you read the documents, it certainly comes across as though Stella's argument doesn't stack up. I haven't read the whole thing as it's about 37 pages long, but I've read about the first twelve pages, and it just reinforces the opinion that I already held anyway.
george.millman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 01:33
Mystic Dave
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,152
If you read the article, you will see that LAS has applied to the tribunal for a costs order. It doesn't mean he will get all of his costs as they are usually about 2/3 of the overall bill, unless granted on an indemnity basis (for spurious cases, which may apply here!). It is a normal procedure for the winner to seek to recover their costs - why should he have to shell out to defend a claim, which had no merit and appears to have just been done for a quick, quiet settlement? If winners did not recover their costs, then all kinds of claims would appear and many fake claims would be settled as it would be cheaper than fighting - which rather defeats the objective of justice.

Michelle forgot to mention that Syed got her up the club and Sugar got rather fed up of her parading herself in celeb mags.
Mystic Dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 01:37
totalwise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,366
a real businessperson makes their way in the world, they dont depend on silly employment tribunals and what not.
totalwise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 03:29
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
I think what the other person meant was that the exact details of the case are public information, so you can read them. If you read the documents, it certainly comes across as though Stella's argument doesn't stack up. I haven't read the whole thing as it's about 37 pages long, but I've read about the first twelve pages, and it just reinforces the opinion that I already held anyway.
Ah well, that might have been a better argument, but it wasn't the one Damanda was making. I haven't read the judgement, and admittedly if I did so it might change my mind.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 04:26
Paace
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,481
a real businessperson makes their way in the world, they dont depend on silly employment tribunals and what not.
Employees have to resort to tribunals for all sorts of reasons, like bullying and abuse in the workplace, pay and conditions etc etc.

Who knows what went on in Stella's workplace, none of us were there . I'm sure a tribunal is the last place any working person would want to approach and only go there after long consideration and advice.
Paace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 06:23
Damanda
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 33,270
How can I check easily whether tribunals are biased in favour of employers? It doesn't seem at all like something that it would be possible to collect reliable data on.
And yet you've been able to form the view that tribunals are always biased towards the employer! How did you collect that 'reliable data"?
It's a rhetorical question, I'm not interested in you reply but you should perhaps consider it for your own benefit.

As for your second paragraph, I can only say again, re-read my post. If you do so, and you still hold that my comments about the impression Stella made on me on the show and on her financial situation rely on my supposition about the bias of tribunals, then you are either stupid or a liar.
Oh dear, you seem to not know what you said. Never mind then eh.
Damanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 08:28
sarahj1986
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 8,093
I do feel for Stella, I really liked her in the series and did want her to win. As for her case, the judge ruled against her, some of her "evidence" was her word against another so we will never know if certain things did happen or get said. Me personally if there wasn't a job there I would have stuck it out then left to go else where, taking LAS to court and it being a high profile case it does make it difficult for her own progression - who would employ somebody who might take them to court.

As for LAS taking her for costs, I do understand why he is doing it. At the end of the day Stella was the one taking him to tribunal and it is standard for those who lose to expect the possibility of being pursued for legal costs, he is within his rights to do that. We shall see what happens
sarahj1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2013, 13:48
The Rhydler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,220
Feel sorry for Stella and believe every word she says about her treatment

And that's proven by the shows format being changed as LS clearly does not want to be responsible for these people as they are in his employ.
The Rhydler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2013, 00:21
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
And yet you've been able to form the view that tribunals are always biased towards the employer! How did you collect that 'reliable data"?
It's a rhetorical question, I'm not interested in you reply but you should perhaps consider it for your own benefit.
Again, re-read my post. I never claimed to have any evidence, nor indeed did I suggest that tribunals were always biased. I said that it was my opinion that they tended to be biased. For the record, this opinion is based purely on my prejudices.

You on the other hand did claim to that there was evidence that tribunals were not biased. You still won't say where that might be viewed.


Oh dear, you seem to not know what you said. Never mind then eh.
I know what I said. It's there for anyone who's interested (nobody, I suspect) to read at post # 17.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2013, 03:08
wolvesdavid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,879
To be fair I think we would have a starting point of thinking that a tribunal is fair, much like an assumption of innocence in a criminal case.
wolvesdavid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-06-2013, 03:09
wolvesdavid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,879

And that's proven by the shows format being changed
Laughable. Nothing is proven by a change in format of the TV show.
wolvesdavid is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:11.