Disgruntled employee
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
When he asks for the items back and she refuses, she is then keeping hold of them and treating them as her own. The offence is complete.
Bad Company, I would just belts and braces to make sure that there is no lien that she has over the items etc no contractual terms and whatnot. i.e. no defence, thus theft.
Cor blimey. I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer.Bad Company, I would just belts and braces to make sure that there is no lien that she has over the items etc no contractual terms and whatnot. i.e. no defence, thus theft.
It is the appropriation that must be dishonest. Seeming the items were given to her willingly there was no dishonest appropriation, so no theft.
The OP likely has a civil claim however ought to take a sensible view on the costs and time (and lack of recoverability of both) of litigation versus the value of the goods which he may recover. In coming to that view he ought to consider how compliant the ex employee night be in being honest in her evidence and complying with any judgment.
Moving on is the sensible, commercially sound decision.
allergictocheese said:
Jasandjules said:
When he asks for the items back and she refuses, she is then keeping hold of them and treating them as her own. The offence is complete.
Bad Company, I would just belts and braces to make sure that there is no lien that she has over the items etc no contractual terms and whatnot. i.e. no defence, thus theft.
Cor blimey. I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer.Bad Company, I would just belts and braces to make sure that there is no lien that she has over the items etc no contractual terms and whatnot. i.e. no defence, thus theft.
It is the appropriation that must be dishonest. Seeming the items were given to her willingly there was no dishonest appropriation, so no theft.
<snip>.
also the assertions by the OP that the suggestion the ex -employee was owed money were baseless aren;t necessarily baseless until a civil court or ET had decided as much.
allergictocheese said:
Jasandjules said:
When he asks for the items back and she refuses, she is then keeping hold of them and treating them as her own. The offence is complete.
Bad Company, I would just belts and braces to make sure that there is no lien that she has over the items etc no contractual terms and whatnot. i.e. no defence, thus theft.
Cor blimey. I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer.Bad Company, I would just belts and braces to make sure that there is no lien that she has over the items etc no contractual terms and whatnot. i.e. no defence, thus theft.
It is the appropriation that must be dishonest. Seeming the items were given to her willingly there was no dishonest appropriation, so no theft.
The OP likely has a civil claim however ought to take a sensible view on the costs and time (and lack of recoverability of both) of litigation versus the value of the goods which he may recover. In coming to that view he ought to consider how compliant the ex employee night be in being honest in her evidence and complying with any judgment.
Moving on is the sensible, commercially sound decision.
Granfondo said:
allergictocheese said:
Jasandjules said:
When he asks for the items back and she refuses, she is then keeping hold of them and treating them as her own. The offence is complete.
Bad Company, I would just belts and braces to make sure that there is no lien that she has over the items etc no contractual terms and whatnot. i.e. no defence, thus theft.
Cor blimey. I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer.Bad Company, I would just belts and braces to make sure that there is no lien that she has over the items etc no contractual terms and whatnot. i.e. no defence, thus theft.
It is the appropriation that must be dishonest. Seeming the items were given to her willingly there was no dishonest appropriation, so no theft.
The OP likely has a civil claim however ought to take a sensible view on the costs and time (and lack of recoverability of both) of litigation versus the value of the goods which he may recover. In coming to that view he ought to consider how compliant the ex employee night be in being honest in her evidence and complying with any judgment.
Moving on is the sensible, commercially sound decision.
allergictocheese said:
Cor blimey. I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer.
Oh no, they are horrible nasty people.In any event, the example I recall from my Criminal Law (perhaps mistakenly, but nevertheless the one that sticks in my mind) was coats at a party, the incorrect being removed innocently, however, once apprised that they had the wrong coat, a continued refusal to return it and/or a continued use of it as their own property, invokes the offence.
As an aside most business insurance includes legal cover, which usually covers recovery of possessions from employees:
What is covered What is not covered
1 The defence of any Legal Proceedings, brought in an employment
tribunal, arising from a dispute with an Employee, ex-Employee or
prospective Employee relating to
A) the contract of employment with You
B) actual or alleged breaches of their statutory rights under
employment legislation
2 The pursuit of any Legal Proceedings to recover possessions or
premises which are owned by You but occupied by Your Employee
or ex-Employee
What is covered What is not covered
1 The defence of any Legal Proceedings, brought in an employment
tribunal, arising from a dispute with an Employee, ex-Employee or
prospective Employee relating to
A) the contract of employment with You
B) actual or alleged breaches of their statutory rights under
employment legislation
2 The pursuit of any Legal Proceedings to recover possessions or
premises which are owned by You but occupied by Your Employee
or ex-Employee
mph1977 said:
Granfondo said:
allergictocheese said:
Jasandjules said:
When he asks for the items back and she refuses, she is then keeping hold of them and treating them as her own. The offence is complete.
Bad Company, I would just belts and braces to make sure that there is no lien that she has over the items etc no contractual terms and whatnot. i.e. no defence, thus theft.
Cor blimey. I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer.Bad Company, I would just belts and braces to make sure that there is no lien that she has over the items etc no contractual terms and whatnot. i.e. no defence, thus theft.
It is the appropriation that must be dishonest. Seeming the items were given to her willingly there was no dishonest appropriation, so no theft.
The OP likely has a civil claim however ought to take a sensible view on the costs and time (and lack of recoverability of both) of litigation versus the value of the goods which he may recover. In coming to that view he ought to consider how compliant the ex employee night be in being honest in her evidence and complying with any judgm
Moving on is the sensible, commercially sound decision.
What's the difference apart from the fact the car probably belongs to a lease Co instead of the Op's Co?
Cost should have no baring on the keeping of other people's property!
allergictocheese said:
Cor blimey. I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer.
It is the appropriation that must be dishonest. Seeming the items were given to her willingly there was no dishonest appropriation, so no theft.
Are you a lawyer?It is the appropriation that must be dishonest. Seeming the items were given to her willingly there was no dishonest appropriation, so no theft.
The car was not given to her willingly, she was allowed use of it under her contract of employment. That contract of employment ended, and that permission was revoked.
The point at which the car was appropriated was not when she was given it, the point at which she appropriated it was when she began to assume the rights of an owner of the property. This could be very well argued was when she did not return the property despite direct requests and simply used it as if it was her own car, driving for other trips.
Jasandjules said:
Oh no, they are horrible nasty people.
In any event, the example I recall from my Criminal Law (perhaps mistakenly, but nevertheless the one that sticks in my mind) was coats at a party, the incorrect being removed innocently, however, once apprised that they had the wrong coat, a continued refusal to return it and/or a continued use of it as their own property, invokes the offence.
The distinction being that the coat was taken without the true owner's consent. Here the car was willingly and openly provided to the employee. There is a civil dispute here over monies owed and some poor behaviour by the disgruntled ex-employee, however the required dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive is missing.In any event, the example I recall from my Criminal Law (perhaps mistakenly, but nevertheless the one that sticks in my mind) was coats at a party, the incorrect being removed innocently, however, once apprised that they had the wrong coat, a continued refusal to return it and/or a continued use of it as their own property, invokes the offence.
To take the alternative point of view would mean that any item loaned that is not returned when required is viewed as having being stolen and a criminal act, which is plainly illogical.
allergictocheese said:
The distinction being that the coat was taken without the true owner's consent. Here the car was willingly and openly provided to the employee. There is a civil dispute here over monies owed and some poor behaviour by the disgruntled ex-employee, however the required dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive is missing.
To take the alternative point of view would mean that any item loaned that is not returned when required is viewed as having being stolen and a criminal act, which is plainly illogical.
This would seem to be a telling point.To take the alternative point of view would mean that any item loaned that is not returned when required is viewed as having being stolen and a criminal act, which is plainly illogical.
RobinOakapple said:
allergictocheese said:
To take the alternative point of view would mean that any item loaned that is not returned when required is viewed as having being stolen and a criminal act, which is plainly illogical.
This would seem to be a telling point.In that alternate universe, I can roll up to Hertz on Monday, rent a Merc S-Class for a day and start up my own limo business.
I can rag 30,000 miles onto it over the coming weeks, make some good cash and not pay Hertz another penny, safe in the knowledge that because Hertz happily handed me the keys, I'm not doing anything illegal.
Back in the real world, the definition of 'appropriate' in terms of the law and theft is the point when you assert rights over the item in question as if you were the owner.
No, no no, no.
You haven't got a theft of the car. You do, however, have a very clear TWOC if she continues to use it as her own- or indeed just keep it from you- after having been informed of her lack of employment. And the need to return it.
Dealt with a case a while back whereby a chap hid a company lorry due to being owed money by them... TWOC.
You haven't got a theft of the car. You do, however, have a very clear TWOC if she continues to use it as her own- or indeed just keep it from you- after having been informed of her lack of employment. And the need to return it.
Dealt with a case a while back whereby a chap hid a company lorry due to being owed money by them... TWOC.
carreauchompeur said:
No, no no, no.
You haven't got a theft of the car. You do, however, have a very clear TWOC if she continues to use it as her own- or indeed just keep it from you- after having been informed of her lack of employment. And the need to return it.
Dealt with a case a while back whereby a chap hid a company lorry due to being owed money by them... TWOC.
With that I agree. With my point above, I was pointing out that his logic about the point of appropriation was incorrect in law and practice. You haven't got a theft of the car. You do, however, have a very clear TWOC if she continues to use it as her own- or indeed just keep it from you- after having been informed of her lack of employment. And the need to return it.
Dealt with a case a while back whereby a chap hid a company lorry due to being owed money by them... TWOC.
I entirely agree that the hurdle of intent to deprive is more difficult to prove. That would become an easier matter to prove if she'd attempted to dispose of the car, or, when time went on so much that it was clear she had no intention to return it.
That said, unless there is something where in law it gives the right of the 'taker' to hold onto goods, I am inclined to agree with jasandjules that this could very much go either way.
For example, if someone lends me something of large value, I can't keep it from them on the basis that they accede to my demands over a dispute over a much lower amount.
carreauchompeur said:
No, no no, no.
You haven't got a theft of the car. You do, however, have a very clear TWOC if she continues to use it as her own- or indeed just keep it from you- after having been informed of her lack of employment. And the need to return it.
Dealt with a case a while back whereby a chap hid a company lorry due to being owed money by them... TWOC.
So is it a police matter or civil?You haven't got a theft of the car. You do, however, have a very clear TWOC if she continues to use it as her own- or indeed just keep it from you- after having been informed of her lack of employment. And the need to return it.
Dealt with a case a while back whereby a chap hid a company lorry due to being owed money by them... TWOC.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff