Enforcement of cost order

It’s important to remember that Employment Tribunal Cost Orders obtained on future earnings are enforceable in the High Court. The High Court does not keep copies of Writ of Execution it issues, as a result some bailiffs will amend them increasing the amount and interest. This is what happened to me.

I am writing this information to create awareness so that no individual will endure the harassment I was subjected to in the name of the High Court Writ of enforcement was issued by the High Court. It turned out to be a tissue of lies from Andrew Wilson and Co and Mr Mark Nolan (Stockport Council). This is about making the public aware of  what they should do when they receive notice of enforcement and, what they should check for.

 

I won the enforcement proceedings in the High Court so I can write about my experience with the hope people will learn from my experience.  It was difficult, as I had to endure blackmail, intimidation, abuse, disinformation and  subjected to character assassination. The enforcement of the cost order was done in revenge and retribution after the receipt of my email which I sent on 25 May 2018 after receiving an investigation outcome letter from Claire Monaghan (Assistant Director, Police, Crime and Criminal Justice, GMCA, I sent an email to Mr Keeble (Stockport Council Solicitor), stating “I have evidence in writing the Chief Constable was never involved in my case, in fact he never received the letter. The manner Stockport Council put undue pressure on me using his name, is unreasonable and inhumane. Very cruel, I almost committed suicide due to the stress and allegations, I was subjected to racial oppression, now I find out it was all a tissue of lies. Led by Mr Sean Reynolds, off whom DWF sent me an email stating Solicitors have special protection. SRA has confirmed they do not, Mr Sean Reynolds should not have falsified signatures on letters he had written and even sent without prejudice letter to Employment Tribunal, yet the Respondents state I am vexatious?”

Shortly after sending this email, Mr Urry and myself were subjected to intimidation, abuse and even Mr Mark Nolan (Stockport Council in house Solicitor)  wrote to third parties spreading untrue information. He got so vengeful, failed to act on new evidence from third parties that evidenced the current proceedings ET3 and strike out false misleading evidence was relied on/ is being relied on , in his response he was very aggressive stated he will enforce the cost order of the case I lost against Individual Solutions SK, a race discrimination case I lodged in 2012.

Andrew Wilson and Co acting on behalf Stockport Council

I received an email from Andrew Wilson on 3 July 2018 she stated “Please be advised that a Writ of Control has been issued by the High Courts and we are instructed under the Writ to collect the full balance due or to enforce against assets to cover the cost of the debt. The balance due as at today’s date is £8,190.34. Any disputes regarding the Judgment must be taken up with the courts. We are unable to become involved in any disputes as we are simply instructed to enforce for the balance”.

As a result of Andrew Wilson and Co unfair trading and dishonest practices, I made the first  application to the Court with insufficient information, it  was a detriment to me and I lost the first hearing as District Judge Matharu asked Stockport Council Solicitor Mr Mark Nolan  what the interest was he answered he is not a civil solicitor but an Employment Solicitor he does not know the rate of interest. I had a bad headache and was unable to make the necessary calculations, also the time was up. she explained it was 8%,. I appealed the decision.

I received letter dated 6 September  from Claimant Mr Mark Nolan, in his letter he stated “In your new Application you have stated that the Writ interest amount is wrong and whilst you accept that it should be 8% it has been miscalculated. This is incorrect. The legislation permits for 8% interest to be applied annually, at 8% from the date of judgment in 2015 until payment or further Order, as per the attached information from the source legislation. In addition to these appropriate costs of enforcement including court fees have been added”. It was evident a solicitor with over 22 years, pretended not to be able to calculate interest rate of 8% under Section 69 of the county courts act 1984.

After receiving pro bono legal advice, I was advised to request Andrew Wilson and Co and the County court for a completed copy of N471 form that is required to be submitted to the Court in relation to Writ (Application to enforce an award of an Employment Tribunal and request a Writ of Control) and copy of the original writ. Andrew Wilson and Consent a copy of the original High Court writ, the official original sealed writ issued by the High Court dated 11 June 2018. The official original sealed writ issued by the High Court dated 11 June 2018, it correctly calculates the cost order of £5,000, interest £1,180.27, fixed costs £75.50 and costs of execution £117.75 totalling £6373.52.

District Judge Matharu 10 August 2018 and District Judge lyer, 28 September 2018 did not have copies of the sealed High Writ issued dated 11 June 2018 when they made their decisions as the High Court does not retain copies and once they are sealed, they are returned to the High Court Enforcement company. The Claimant Stockport Council has abused the court process by concealing a relevant document

In Mr Mark Nolan’s (Stockport Council Solicitor) letter of the 5 October 2018, he inferred he can do anything he sees fit and accused me of conducting ”enforcement litigation has been vexatious, abusive and destructive or otherwise unreasonable”. He stated in his letter he has instructed Andrew Wilson and Co to execute the warrant. Andrew Wilson and Co Bailiff costs and fees of £ 2126.15 was added, the full amount demanded £10,226.49. if goods are removed total demanded £11,233.88. The purpose of his conduct was to put pressure on me to withdraw the unfair dismissal/ Sexual Harassment/ unlawful discrimination case listed in the Manchester Tribunal on 25 February 2019 but was postponed due to medical illness, he also caused unnecessary distress to one of my main witnesses Mr Urry.  The Manchester Employment Tribunal issued a witness order as it found the witness evidence relevant, he did not oppose the decision.

It was Mr Mark Nolan’s and Andrew Wilson and Co who concealed High Court sealed writ dated 11 June 2018 and failed to disclose the original High Court sealed writ to the District Judges and myself, in addition, also failed to respond to polite letters and emails I’ve sent requesting further information.

I had a case listed at Manchester Employment Tribunal 25 February 2019, a 15-day hearing, which was postponed due to medical reasons to October 2020. It was/ is a battle with DWF representing Stockport Council.

On the 11 October 2018 @ 9:04, I received an email from Mr Jon Keeble on behalf of Stockport Council, it contained the heading Without Prejudice and subject to contract. The email stated

“The offer is £25,000 less the costs award you have not paid (£6,255.77 plus £515 costs for the last application to set aside, bringing the total of £6770.77). The amount would be paid to you is therefore £18,229.23. This is a once only offer. The amount on offer is non-negotiable and therefore it is actively take it or leave it. …. You will need to confirm that on that by 4.00 pm on 18 October 2018.” (Page 91)

I rejected this offer on the same day, 11 October 2018 @ 13.22 pm. It’s noteworthy, to mention that High Court set aside the costs of £515 on the 15 March 2019, after I won my appeal .

Blackmail and Bankruptcy  18 October 2018 – I  received a voice message left on my mobile from Mr WR on 18 October 2018 @ 10:48 , he left a message Stating “…it’s Mr WR from the High Court, we need to hear from you urgently with reference to a High Court Writ against you from Stockport Council. If we do not hear from you we will be considering making you bankrupt by the Council….”. I rang him back, asked him if he works for the High Court as per his voice message, he replied he works for Andrew Wilson and Co, he said if I do not pay £10,226.49 today, I will be served with bankruptcy papers tomorrow morning of £10,226.49, Friday, 19 October 2018. Mr WR repeatedly said that if I am made bankrupt it will affect my credit rating, Stockport Council wanted me bankrupt.

On 18 October 2015, I emailed Mr Jon Keeble (DWF) and Ms Ponzini (DWF) notified them I had received a call from Mr Wray of Andrew Wilson & Co, he said if I do not pay the cost order costs £10,226.49, I will be served with Bankruptcy. I reminded both of them the offer deadline is 18 October 2018  as I had rejected the offer I had now received a call demanding payment. I received a response from Mr Jon Keeble (DWF), he copied in Ms Ponzini (DWF), he stated “As you are aware we are not dealing with the cost application but will forward your email to our client”. I did not receive a response from Mr Mark Nolan. He has not denied my claims, I have a copy of the voice message left on my mobile.

I sent an email on 18 October 2018 to the Employment Tribunal, and  copied in  Mr Mark Nolan, Mr Jon Keeble and Ms Ponzini.  I notified all of I had received a voice message from Mr Wray (Andrew and Co Enforcement agent.

On the 23 October 2018, I received a judgement order from Manchester Employment Tribunal, it stated Regional Employment Judge Parkin has also considered your email of 18 October 2018. The Employment Tribunal cannot deal with enforcement proceedings or possible bankruptcy. In so far as your email is an application to reconsider and revoke the costs judgment, it is not practicable for the Employment Judge concerned to consider your application. The Regional Employment Judge has therefore done so.” It was evident that Manchester ET would not intervene on blackmail, this gave Stockport Council and DWF the power to act with impunity. I relied on  Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council (Practice and Procedure: Costs) [2016] UKEAT. His Honour Judge David Richardson ruled in the case of Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council:

  1. The ET plainly did not make the Order for costs in the expectation that the Respondents would bring bankruptcy proceedings: it made the Order, not on the basis that the Claimant would be bankrupted and the debt released, but on the quite different basis that the debt would remain in place and the Claimant’s earning capacity would enable him to make payment in due course.
  2. Another is the question of bankruptcy proceedings. The existing statutory demands will fall away as a result of this Judgment. It may be that the Respondents, having regard to the analysis earlier in this Judgment, will take the view that bankruptcy proceedings have little to  offer.  But a party who applies for costs to the ET and relies wholly or in part on an argument  that the paying party’s future earning capacity is to be taken into account ought to say if there is  any intention in the near future to serve statutory demands and bring bankruptcy proceedings.  Bankruptcy may result in the extinguishment of the debt before any future earning capacity can be brought to bear; and it may have other severe consequences for the paying party – both  personal and financial.

My only hope was the High Court, I took into consideration the fact that I  had spent over 2 years researching case judgements at Manchester Employment Tribunal as I studied my MSc Business Analytics. I found that Black Ethnic Minorities, Litigants in Person,  who brought race discrimination cases, where the Respondent had filed a defence, none of them won their cases. Statistically, all the race discrimination cases, the Black ethnic minorities were discredited. Claimants who were represented saw their chances of winning at 7%.

DWF on behalf of Stockport Council made another without prejudice offer at the end of January 2019 stating that, if I withdraw the claim Stockport Council will not apply for costs of approximately £130,000, prior to that Stockport Council internal solicitor bragged to me I will lose the case, I am wasting time. I asked myself Stockport Council solicitor Mr Mark Nolan is pursuing me for £5000 in the High Court,  have increased the amount and charged exorbitant interest, hearing listed on 15 March 2019 in the High Court, yet Stockport Council legal team are willingly offering me to withdraw sexual harassment case/ discrimination/ unfair dismissal case and they won’t pursue costs. I was so lucky, I got help from legal advice, Pro Bono litigator read the letters and advised me not to do that. He advised me how to win the hearing on 15 March 2019.

Mr Mark Nolan continuously deliberately and intentionally spread untrue detrimental information against me to third parties as explained above claiming that “the first two such applications having been dismissed with costs awarded against her in favour of the Respondent”. Factually, costs were issued at the first hearing £515.00 by District Judge Matharu which were set aside by District Judge Beaver on 15 March 2019. Second hearing District Judge refused to issue costs.

District Judge Beaver  of the High Court rejected on 15 March 2019 , Ms Vicki Bates (Head of Legal, Stockport Council) application for a Civil restraint order, he ruled my application was made with merit and set aside the cost order of £515.00 issued on 10 August 2018 by District Judge Matharu., made in error of law, which Mr Mark Nolan had used to discredit me to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, wrote misleading submissions to the Regional Judge and Mr Eric Rowe (Andrew Wilson and Co enforcement agent).

In an application letter of 27 March 2019 written by Mr Mark Nolan (Stockport Council) submitted to the High Court , he applied for another Civil restraint order, he stated “The Defendant/Applicant continues to engage in vexatious and unreasonable activity, which was the reason for the making of a Costs Order in the first-instance Tribunal proceedings, as exemplified by the fourth enclosure herewith. A second Employment Tribunal claim with an estimated length of fifteen days, brought by the Defendant, has recently been adjourned postponed for the third time and a new date is currently awaited. The Claimant/Respondent respectfully asks the Court to consider making a Civil Restraint Order in the terms outlined in Paragraph 7 of the enclosed Further Summary of the Claimant’s position, at the forthcoming Hearing”. It’s noteworthy, that Manchester ET considered the postponement issue on 5 December 2019 and ruled in my favour. As Stockport Council claimed it’s not possible to have a fair hearing, only.

On 10 June 2019, the hearing resumed, District Judge  Richmond of the High Court rejected Mr Mark Nolan’s application for a Civil Restraint order, in his reasons he agreed with me that the notice of enforcement had the wrong amount and interest. He also was critical that Mr Mark Nolan applied for a Civil restraint order on a current  Employment Tribunal case that had nothing to do with the enforcement of a cost order. I won the case. Mr Mark Nolan instructed Andrew Wilson and Co to issue a writ of enforcement demanding payment on 10 May 2019 during a period the High Court had ordered a stay of execution.

District Judge  Richmond and  District Judge  Beaver of the High Court’s  decision, both refused to issue a Civil Restraint order and ruled my applications had merit, their decision was received by my friends, family and members of the community as justice served. I cried tears of joy, having won the case after persevering through the abuse, bullying, intimidation, blackmail and harassment. District Judge  Richmond and  District Judge  Beaver of the High Court’s  made me realise the High Court is about justice and documents, any party relying on character assassination and abusive descriptions will not win.

After I won on the 10 June 2019, Mr Mark Nolan, paid a different law firm to apply to Preston High Court for another notice of enforcement, which was used to harass me as I waited for Manchester High Court to issue an instalment order in accordance to District Judge  Richmond court order.

I received the monthly payment instalment order, Andrew Wilson and Co enforcement agents had no choice but throw away Preston High Court order.

Conclusion

After District Judge  Richmond and  District Judge  Beaver heard of the High Court’s   refusal to  issue a Civil Restraint order. Stockport instructed DWF to apply to strike out my case at the Employment Tribunal on the grounds that it’s no longer fair to have a hearing. The Preliminary hearing was held on 5 December 2019, Stockport Council were represented by Counsel and DWF.  They lost the hearing despite Mr Mark Nolan boasting to me that my case will be struck out. It was not .