Judgment Day

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.

 

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.

Your suggestion of joining another body seems a sensible one if you have such a problem with the IFoA. Another poster quite rationally suggested to Null that they do this, however Null didn't seem to be overly receptive and indeed criticised the poster at the mere suggestion.

 

Agreed Ace123 - the claimant in that case was pursuing much more serious issues.

 

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.

 

She was pursing similar heads of damage to that of many actuaries currently litigating against the IFOA.

 

[QUOTE="whistleblower21, post: 61356, member: 8474" lodge an appeal before the EAT as as a third part, but be prepared for costs if you waste their time.[/QUOTE]
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!

 

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?

The claimant v IFoA was pursuing on basis of race only, not sex or disability. The cases are fundamentally different - to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

 

So Null should get a similar pay out ?

He wont reply to the thread because any amount he gets is going to be a victory as he won't want to let his guard down. He might want 100k and get 5k, but then that 5k will be a victory on here for him and his followers even though in reality it's not

 

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

 

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.

 

I keep asking questions and instead of answers I get attacked.

Given the level of discrimination that you are claiming in this case - how much of a payout should null be getting?
IF you like others are telling people to make a claim - you should be up front and tell people here the costs involved - but you won't...

 

Yet you argue the IFoA has spent thousands on legal fees defending this action?

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.

 

Dont worry, I hope you are proud when your fees go up, to pay for all of this, lol

 

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.

 

What makes you say it is frivolous??? There is a judgement in the Claimants favour...

 

ProudActuary, Ace123 etc. just don't agree with the Judgment and don't want others to bring similar claims. We must wonder why they're so keen to dissuade others.

 

It wasn't frivolous as they lost and the world has learned what the IFoA were up to. They took no steps to put an end to the discrimination as the Judgment notes. They had the opportunity to do that several times before the successful claim was lodged in 2017. It was their own fault that they had that claim to defend. Furthermore they could have tried to settle the claim much earlier and work something out with the Claimant to save members money. The financial benefit to IFoA of the non-competition understanding was to the detriment of British members. As for scaremongering that this will lead to increasing fees well first of all none of the IFoA Executives should get any payrises or bonuses this year if IFoA insists they continue in their jobs, that can go towards their failed legal defence costs. It's not right that members foot the bill.

 

That's a good point. How do they manage it without having discriminatory arrangements... must be better run.

 

Why should the claimant give a preview of his forthcoming actions when IFoA won't even tell its own members what's been found against them a month ago? Perhaps those making such demands should declare their interests in the matter...

 

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.

 

I think you are a bit too proud.
However you do remind me of those that are typical IFOA members.