So basically if she was awarded 4.2million there is no reason why Null won't get a figure like this. Anything less than this, actually is a failure and proves how much the courts won't be fooled by someone chasing a "loophole".She was subjected to direct discrimination on the grounds of race disability and sex. She was awarded £4.2 million. Rather than spread fake news and misinformation, I suggest you understand the facts
Thanks for that - seems strange that you seem to want to stifle debate when challenged. Yes, I've read that case and the circumstances are significantly different from the judgment referred to in this thread. Analagous to comparing apples with pears.I suggest you go and understand the facts in your own time.
Agreed Ace123 - the claimant in that case was pursuing much more serious issues.So basically if she was awarded 4.2million there is no reason why Null won't get a figure like this. Anything less than this, actually is a failure and proves how much the courts won't be fooled by someone chasing a "loophole".
The post to which I am responding demonstrates why the profession has behaved in the way it has. Its members should look at what the case law actually says rather than extrapolating from their limited biased knowledge base. Again, I say to those like ACE123, if you believe your arguments have merit, lodge an appeal before the EAT as as a third part, but be prepared for costs if you waste their time.So basically if she was awarded 4.2million there is no reason why Null won't get a figure like this. Anything less than this, actually is a failure and proves how much the courts won't be fooled by someone chasing a "loophole".
In fact I would love for Null to express what he sees as a "win" before tomorrow's judgement.
She was pursing similar heads of damage to that of many actuaries currently litigating against the IFOA.Agreed Ace123 - the claimant in that case was pursuing much more serious issues.
Answer the question: Was she claiming because some students in another country had 4 tries a year to sit an exam rather than 2 (with the other 2 set of exams having significantly lower pass rates)? Or was the claimant in that case trying to join the medical profession of another country even though they had no intention of practising or working in that country?She was pursing similar heads of damage to that of many actuaries currently litigating against the IFOA.
So Null should get a similar pay out ?She was pursing similar heads of damage to that of many actuaries currently litigating against the IFOA.
lodge an appeal before the EAT as as a third party, but be prepared for costs if you waste their time.
Fantastic - some acknowledgement that the costs of litigation are potentially high. Curious that you fail to mention costs when encouraging individuals to make claims against the IFoA!
I keep asking questions and instead of answers I get attacked.Costs at the EAT are rare, however if a third party lodges a baseless appeal like the one mentioned in respect of ACE123, then they would case costs.
another point is that individuals do not lodge claims at the EAT. They lodge them in a junior tribunal - The Employment Tribunal
Yet you argue the IFoA has spent thousands on legal fees defending this action?It is free to lodge claims against the IFOA at the Employment Tribunal. Costs are rarely awarded unless a Claimant is bringing poor claims or if the Respondent is putting forward a baseless defense.
Only person to suggest an appeal is you! Ace123 hasn't suggesting anything. The "baseless appeal" is your lay opinion. Unless you have a legal qualification.Costs at the EAT are rare, however if a third party lodges a baseless appeal like the one mentioned in respect of ACE123, then they would case costs.
I'm fortunate enough that my employers pay for the cost of my actuarial subscription. I do feel for members who pay their own fees though - particularly so if, as you have mentioned in several posts, they increase as the IFoA has to defend itself against frivolous court action.Dont worry, I hope you are proud when your fees go up, to pay for all of this,
What makes you say it is frivolous??? There is a judgement in the Claimants favour...I'm fortunate enough that my employers pay for the cost of my actuarial subscription. I do feel for members who pay their own fees though - particularly so if, as you have mentioned in several posts, they increase as the IFoA has to defend itself against frivolous court action.
I do feel for members who pay their own fees though - particularly so if, as you have mentioned in several posts, they increase as the IFoA has to defend itself against frivolous court action.
I hope you are proud of paying increased fees because of our professions transgressions, lol..I might join the American profession. It is much cheaper and they do not discriminate unlike the UK body.
He wont reply to the thread because ...
I think you are a bit too proud.Hahaha - you two are comedy gold.
almost_there - read the thread, it's only null and whistleblower who have been speculating members' fees might increase!
My comment on frivolous litigation was wider. For example, claim 3 in the 2019 case FAILED due to "circular" rationale. The 2017 claim FAILED. Some posters are recommending litigation rather than going through complaints channels.
As for this "declare their interests nonsense" - you seem to have a default position that if someone disagrees with you they are an ActEd employee or IFoA employee. Have a day off and stop trying to call in to question other poster's integrity just because they don't see this judgment as "world ending".
I'll be sure to watch BBC news/CNN tomorrow for news flashes for the next part of judgment day. If not, I look forward to hearin the outcome on here. Unless you, null or whistleblower revert to default and tell people to email the IFoA.