Christian Horner

[anonymous_user]

DeejRC said:

Probably because the consequences of a PA wking off her boss are irrelevant compared to control of a multi billion £ company.

& some people think that the control of a multi billion £ company is irrelevant compared to sexual harassment/ coercion in the workplace of 50% of the population

[Durzel]

Sandpit Steve said:

Gazzab said:

skwdenyer said:

Forester1965 said:

Pawn? Her case has probably been used by others for their own purpose but, perhaps, there are some out there who have principles and are simply looking for recognition their boss is a filthy letch?

An ET won’t order an outcome other than money. The only benefit to an ET is to have the ET say “yes, you’re right,” something that a very large payoff also rather says.

If an ET says yes you were wronged then that’s formal recognition. Brand Horner spunkfinger will formally be damaged rather than debatable stuff.

Yes, she appears to want her day in court, and for Horny’s behaviour to be a matter of public record rather than simply suspicion and conjecture. That she has others in the company supporting her, and seemingly doesn’t need the money, both make that day in court more likely to happen.

As I understand it judges take a pretty dim view of litigants that blow through mediation and reasonable settlement offers purely "to have their day in court".

Courts are very busy, and are treated as a venue where things are resolved when the parties are at an impasse, not when one party wants to force it into a courtroom for performative reasons.

[maz8062]

Durzel said:

Sandpit Steve said:

Gazzab said:

skwdenyer said:

Forester1965 said:

Pawn? Her case has probably been used by others for their own purpose but, perhaps, there are some out there who have principles and are simply looking for recognition their boss is a filthy letch?

An ET won’t order an outcome other than money. The only benefit to an ET is to have the ET say “yes, you’re right,” something that a very large payoff also rather says.

If an ET says yes you were wronged then that’s formal recognition. Brand Horner spunkfinger will formally be damaged rather than debatable stuff.

Yes, she appears to want her day in court, and for Horny’s behaviour to be a matter of public record rather than simply suspicion and conjecture. That she has others in the company supporting her, and seemingly doesn’t need the money, both make that day in court more likely to happen.

As I understand it judges take a pretty dim view of litigants that blow through mediation and reasonable settlement offers purely "to have their day in court".

Courts are very busy, and are treated as a venue where things are resolved when the parties are at an impasse, not when one party wants to force it into a courtroom for performative reasons.

Exactly this. That’s why they have ACAS first and a pre-hearing before it even gets to court. Plus one would have to declare what outcome that they’re seeking as part of mediation. RB have the findings of a KC and a reported €1M offer in their corner, she has WhatsApp messages.

I don’t even think it’ll actually get to an ET hearing. Even if it does it’s at least 2 years down the road.

[Forester1965]

Durzel said:

As I understand it judges take a pretty dim view of litigants that blow through mediation and reasonable settlement offers purely "to have their day in court".

You understand wrong. The case law on this is pretty well settled.

[Forester1965]

maz8062 said:

Exactly this. That’s why they have ACAS first and a pre-hearing before it even gets to court.

You don't have to have 'ACAS first'. There's no obligation to have conciliation. Getting the certificate code from ACAS by email takes less than 5 minutes through the website.

[Evercross]

Whoaah!

Hang on there for a moment folks. The Guardian article admits (albeit hidden in a lot of word salad) they have no confirmation from either side that an employment tribunal will be the next step if an appeal against the suspension fails.

They are speculating based on the opinion of a random HR legal expert who is not directly linked to the case. All the expert is stating is what usually follows.

It really is just puff journalism in a world where web space is (almost) unlimited.

Edited by Evercross on Wednesday 27th March 10:32

[simon_harris]

Bear in mind that in terms of outcome she can say I want public acknowledgement of and apology for the wrongdoing and I have no interest in any financial settlement.

That is just as valid as saying I want £5m for the hurt and distress and keeping quiet.

[Jasandjules]

maz8062 said:

RB also have the findings of a KC, the ET/ACAS will take that into account so it’s not clear what an ET will solve.

Tell me, do you think the ET would go "Oh my well if a KC produced a report that is the end of the matter, no need for us to look at all". I suspect a judge will be very, very interested in a simple question - why was Mr Horny not suspended given the nature of the allegations THEN why was she suspended ? B

And what do you think ACAS do exactly? They are an arbitration service. They make no decisions, no findings etc.

[Bo_apex]

Evercross said:

Whoaah!

Hang on there for a moment folks. The Guardian article admits (albeit hidden in a lot of word salad) they have no confirmation from either side that an employment tribunal will be the next step if an appeal against the suspension fails.

They are speculating based on the opinion of a random HR legal expert who is not directly linked to the case. All the expert is stating is what usually follows.

It really is just puff journalism in a world where web space is (almost) unlimited.

Edited by Evercross on Wednesday 27th March 10:32

That won't prevent the frothers from frothing

[spookly]

Evercross said:

Whoaah!

Hang on there for a moment folks. The Guardian article admits (albeit hidden in a lot of word salad) they have no confirmation from either side that an employment tribunal will be the next step if an appeal against the suspension fails.

They are speculating based on the opinion of a random HR legal expert who is not directly linked to the case. All the expert is stating is what usually follows.

It really is just puff journalism in a world where web space is (almost) unlimited.

Edited by Evercross on Wednesday 27th March 10:32

They can't start proceedings for a tribunal until the internal appeal is completed. So nobody knows yet.

If RB uphold her appeal and sack Horner and make the PA a suitable payout then there might be no need for her to seek a tribunal.

There are set steps to follow, and she has indicated that she's willing to take the next step - internal appeal. She has also already declined payouts and engaged a legal team. So the likelihood is that unless RB uphold her appeal and deal with Horner, then it is looking very likely to be headed to a tribunal.

[Forester1965]

Notwithstanding her own disciplinary (she's currently suspended). If I was being unkind I might suggest it's tactical and a play for time.

[DeejRC]

anonymous_user said:

DeejRC said:

Probably because the consequences of a PA wking off her boss are irrelevant compared to control of a multi billion £ company.

& some people think that the control of a multi billion £ company is irrelevant compared to sexual harassment/ coercion in the workplace of 50% of the population

Quite possibly. I expect reality to play out differently.

[Byker28i]

drdel said:

When surrounded by press supposition the best strategy is to keep your powder dry until you can identify the real enemy.

There is nothing to be gained by RBR or Horner engaging in a public spat while the accuser has anonymity and is reportedly burning cash with a US legal team financed by U2.

Sorry I've missed this - where's the proof of this claim?

[Byker28i]

Jasandjules said:

maz8062 said:

RB also have the findings of a KC, the ET/ACAS will take that into account so it’s not clear what an ET will solve.

Tell me, do you think the ET would go "Oh my well if a KC produced a report that is the end of the matter, no need for us to look at all". I suspect a judge will be very, very interested in a simple question - why was Mr Horny not suspended given the nature of the allegations THEN why was she suspended ? B

And what do you think ACAS do exactly? They are an arbitration service. They make no decisions, no findings etc.

Maz has been desperately defending Horny since this broke, coming up with all sorts of scenarios. We've no idea what evidence the KC saw if he was even allowed to see the texts. We know he interviewed Horny, thats it.

I mean if we're allowed like Maz to make up scenarios
CH "I'm innocent sir"
RB "We'd like him to be innocent, here's your large cheque. Don't worry the report will never be made public"

[Evercross]

Byker28i said:

Jasandjules said:

maz8062 said:

RB also have the findings of a KC, the ET/ACAS will take that into account so it’s not clear what an ET will solve.

Tell me, do you think the ET would go "Oh my well if a KC produced a report that is the end of the matter, no need for us to look at all". I suspect a judge will be very, very interested in a simple question - why was Mr Horny not suspended given the nature of the allegations THEN why was she suspended ? B

And what do you think ACAS do exactly? They are an arbitration service. They make no decisions, no findings etc.

Maz has been desperately defending Horny since this broke, coming up with all sorts of scenarios. We've no idea what evidence the KC saw if he was even allowed to see the texts. We know he interviewed Horny, thats it.

I mean if we're allowed like Maz to make up scenarios
CH "I'm innocent sir"
RB "We'd like him to be innocent, here's your large cheque. Don't worry the report will never be made public"

Your 'made-up scenario' ignores actual events since the dismissal of the claim (with leave to appeal), which are...

1. The leaking of conversations purported to be between Horner and the PA
2. The suspension of the PA by Red Bull, citing (on the record) 'dishonesty'.

As I and others have said countless times - you don't make a public allegation of dishonesty at the early stages of a process unless you know you can back it up (or you are a complete bunch of fools, and bearing in mind this came from Red Bull and not Horner they are not going to be taking chances on a spurious counter-accusation).

Forester1965 said:

Notwithstanding her own disciplinary (she's currently suspended).

Indeed.

[maz8062]

Byker28i said:

Jasandjules said:

maz8062 said:

RB also have the findings of a KC, the ET/ACAS will take that into account so it’s not clear what an ET will solve.

Tell me, do you think the ET would go "Oh my well if a KC produced a report that is the end of the matter, no need for us to look at all". I suspect a judge will be very, very interested in a simple question - why was Mr Horny not suspended given the nature of the allegations THEN why was she suspended ? B

And what do you think ACAS do exactly? They are an arbitration service. They make no decisions, no findings etc.

Maz has been desperately defending Horny since this broke, coming up with all sorts of scenarios. We've no idea what evidence the KC saw if he was even allowed to see the texts. We know he interviewed Horny, thats it.

I mean if we're allowed like Maz to make up scenarios
CH "I'm innocent sir"
RB "We'd like him to be innocent, here's your large cheque. Don't worry the report will never be made public"

I’m not defending CH, I’m just telling it as it. I once had to look into taking an employer to the ET. Unless you feel that you’ve been wronged and have the time, patience and funding to pursue it, there are a lot more hoops and challenges that you’ll face and the chance of successes are at best 50/50, and the awards are small. In the end I settled and got on with my life. These things are stacked in favour of the employer, who tend to have the time to wait and the funding to confuse matters and defend themselves.

For example, even before it gets to a hearing the judge will look at the evidence and will tend to place weight on conciliation attempts, which RB have done by employing the KC and offering a generous settlement - all refused by the PA. Unless the judge sees merit in pursuing the case with a likely outcome different to what has already been put forward, they won’t hear the case and will instead instruct counsel to sort it out and not waste the ET’s time.

[Forester1965]

maz8062 said:

For example, even before it gets to a hearing the judge will look at the evidence and will tend to place weight on conciliation attempts, which RB have done by employing the KC and offering a generous settlement - all refused by the PA. Unless the judge sees merit in pursuing the case with a likely outcome different to what has already been put forward, they won’t hear the case and will instead instruct counsel to sort it out and not waste the ET’s time.

If you do one thing today, ignore this- it's nonsense.

[Jasandjules]

Forester1965 said:

maz8062 said:

For example, even before it gets to a hearing the judge will look at the evidence and will tend to place weight on conciliation attempts, which RB have done by employing the KC and offering a generous settlement - all refused by the PA. Unless the judge sees merit in pursuing the case with a likely outcome different to what has already been put forward, they won’t hear the case and will instead instruct counsel to sort it out and not waste the ET’s time.

If you do one thing today, ignore this- it's nonsense.

What I suspect is that he has confused an application for a Strike Out or a Deposit Order with a "normal process". Such a hearing would be quite short and sweet in this case in my view for two reasons I won't go into here.

But no idea where the "placing weight" on conciliation attempts comes into play, they are Without Prejudice.

A judge can not act on the basis of "won't hear the case"...... The case proceeds to a Full Merits Hearing in the absence of settlement, the ET does not pick and choose which cases it hears as such.

[Mad Maximus]

DeejRC said:

Probably because the consequences of a PA wking off her boss are irrelevant compared to control of a multi billion £ company.
You may not like it, you may consider some British laws have been broken, you may consider it unethical, you may consider it poor form, you may not like the wrath of a wronged wife, alas every single ethical, moral, legal and frankly social convention are sacrificial and irrelevant when it comes to being top of the pile in a multi £billion power play.
Such is life. Those wanting moral retribution will simply have to settled for seeing the RB soap opera play out. The rest of us will continue to watch the racing and hope the Sainz family takes the fight to the Dutch.
I’m v much a Merc & Donkey driving chap btw and I don’t drink RB.

That sounds like you want to live under a dictatorship.

All well and good until someone you love gets messed about with by a sleaze but it’s ok cus I’m a powerful man in charge of squillions!

[Gazzab]

My experience of ET’s is that they can be organised relatively quickly (not 6 months plus). The corporate will have a team of lawyers. The press will pop in for a listen. The impacted person, in this case the PA, can represent herself if she can’t afford or doesn’t want a legal team. The ET ‘judge’ takes a very balanced view based on the ‘facts’ presented to him/her. He/she will not allow either party to misrepresent stuff. ‘Losing’ allows the winner to seek costs.