The paragraph within the case management Order that is of direct relevance for present purposes is paragraph 2, "Disclosure of documents", which I will read in full: "2.1. At the very least, the Order was uncertain and gave rise to arguable contrary interpretations, and the very fact that Employment Judge Sage herself appears to have understood it differently on different subsequent occasions makes this an exceptional case. It seems to me that it is appropriate to take account of the content of the subsequent Order in shedding light on a prior Order that was made by the same Judge in the same proceedings. 49. I accept that Mr Dobson is right that this is not relevant to the question before this EAT and, indeed, Ms Bell did not seek to argue otherwise. The Claimant wanted to request e-disclosure and was ordered to produce a request for documents that was relevant to the issues in the case by the 17 May 2016. He said that, in any event, the written Order was clear. The Appellant filed an affidavit with the EAT in which he gave evidence that Employment Judge Sage had said orally that she was ordering standard disclosure at the hearing on 19 April 2016. As I have said, they point in different directions. In my judgment, Employment Judge Crosfill erred in law by purporting to set aside the Order. Other Orders were made on 19 April 2016, but, as I have said, this was against the background that there was to be a further strike out and Deposit Order hearing in the future. Mr Dobson says that his other appeal was actually a challenge to the 4 August ruling and that Judge Richardson did not appreciate the key ground of appeal which was because Judge Richardson mistakenly thought that what was being asked for was a further Order for disclosure when, in fact, what Mr Dobson was seeking was an Order from the EAT overturning any revocation that had been made of the Order of 19 April 2016. Mr Dobson has provided the skeleton arguments deployed at that hearing and indeed an affidavit setting out his understanding of the orders made which I have read. Afzal Mahboob. If I am wrong about this, I believe that the genuine uncertainty and the fact that that uncertainty has caused or contributed to months of delay means that, in any event, having regard to the guidance in Serco v Wells … I would be entitled to revisit, and if I felt appropriate revoke, the order that had been made. Appeal against a decision by a second EJ which concluded that an order for standard disclosure had not been made by the first EJ. Appointed Chairman in April 2016, having been Chief Executive since November 2001. 43. However, he says that the May 2017 letter is clearer and is to be preferred. He also served as a non-executive Director and Senior Independent Director of Rotork plc until June 2014.External appointments: Senior Adviser to the Board of Gleacher Shacklock LLP, Chairman-designate of Senior plc and lead non-executive Director for the Department of Transport.Committee membership: Member of the Nominations and Remuneration Committees. He retired in 2015 and remains a Senior Adviser.External appointments: Chairman of the National Theatre, Senior Independent Director of the PGA Tour and was Chairman of the Government's Patient Capital Review.Committee membership: Chairman of Remuneration Committee and Member of the Nominations Committee. The answer is that it does not. She has held a number of roles in the charity sector.External appointments: Director of the Schroder Charity Trust and a number of private limited companies.Committee membership: Member of the Nominations Committee. 19. Appointed in July 2015.Experience: She is a chartered accountant and was a partner at Electra Partners, an independent private equity fund manager until June 2015 and then a senior adviser until March 2017. The parties are in agreement as to what the test is and that is the test that was set out by Judge Hand in Serco v Wells in this Appeal Tribunal in 2016, and it is also set out in Rule 29 of the ET Rules. 18. I’m interviewing Keith Carran about the life and times of his family. There has been no general order of disclosure at this time in relation to the substantive issues in this case and they will not be made until the outcome of the preliminary hearing is known. As I understand it, this was at least in part because Mr Dobson had appealed to the EAT on an issue of third party disclosure. What it does is make a number of Orders which will lead up to a point at which the parties will either have provided disclosure or have discovered the extent to which they disagree about their disclosure obligations. …". [Insofar as they are not made by consent, reasons were given at the time and are not now recorded.]". Background Checks Peter Dobson (born July 19, 1964) is an American actor. Afzal Mahboob Chief Operating Officer at Grey Group Kuala Lumpur. In other words, he gave general disclosure. He has been in practice for 11 years, the last 2 years at Fusion Capital Management. 26. In deciding to revisit and revoke the Disclosure Order (if, contrary to his primary view, there had been such an Order) Employment Judge Crosfill relied upon the judgment of the EAT in Serco v Wells [2016] ICR 768. That is the issue before me, and therefore I do not think that there is any issue of res judicata or that I should allow Judge Richardson's view to influence my conclusions. Any outstanding issues can be dealt with after that date.". There are 100+ professionals named "Peter Dobson", who use LinkedIn to exchange information, ideas, and opportunities. Qualified actuary leading PwC's Bristol actuarial office which supports a range of Life and GI companies nationally, both for advisory and audit work. As he put it, by the time he came to look at the Serco v Wells issue, Employment Judge Crosfill was in a substitution mindset. If, as in this case, a second Employment Judge has come on the scene, the fact that the second Employment Judge thought that the first Employment Judge had been wrong is not a good enough reason in itself to set aside the prior Order. On 12 September 2017, the Respondent replied by email saying that it had complied with the Orders for disclosure that had been made on 19 April 2016, saying that it would not be appropriate for an Order for general disclosure to be made until after the strike out application had been heard and the case had been listed for a Full Hearing and case management directions made. We have found at least 200 people in the UK with the name Peter Dobson. However, on 31 October 2017, Mr Dobson wrote again to the Tribunal to ask for an Unless Order to be made against the Respondent on the basis that the Respondent had failed to comply with the Order for general disclosure in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of 19 April 2016 Order. If the right interpretation was that it was indeed an Order for general disclosure, then it seems to me the fact that it was not as clear as it might have been is not of itself a good reason for setting it aside. Also, he says that Judge Crosfill erred in law in failing to take account of the fact that neither party had raised a problem with the meaning of the April 2016 Order until a letter arrived from PWC in August 2016. I am just going to summarise the key points. Join Facebook to connect with Peter Dobson and others you may know. 3. I am reinforced in my view of that order by the letter sent to the parties on 18 August 2016 which, perhaps unlike the order, could not be clearer. The first one is the 23 June 2016 letter which states that the request for specific disclosure should be dealt with at the same time as the general Order of disclosure which was to be complied with by 28 June 2016. I will first deal with the significance of Judge Richardson's ruling in the EAT. Appointed a Director and Chief Financial Officer in May 2013.Experience: He is a chartered accountant and was a senior audit partner of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) until May 2013. An Employment Tribunal can set aside an Order already made in the same proceedings by the Employment Tribunal if it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice, and Judge Hand explained that that means there are really three sets of circumstances in which this might legitimately happen: first is if there is a material change of circumstances since the Order was made; second, if the Order had been based on the material omission or misstatement of fact or law; and third, if some other substantial reason exists necessitating interference. Important note: This list is based on the data made publicly available by the Federal Election Commission. The EAT dismissed the appeal. 2.3. The EAT held that Employment Judge Crosfill had been right to find that, on its true interpretation, the case management Order of 21 April 2016 had not contained an Order for standard disclosure. He also observed, fairly, that many of the difficulties in the case arose in the wake of the Order that Employment Judge Sage had made on 19 April 2016. But, in any event, it is not what the parties think that actually matters, it is what the Order actually objectively means. Mr Dobson refers to a PWC letter of 11 May 2016 - so less than a month after the Employment Judge Sage Order was made - in which PWC say, through their lawyer, that the Respondent is of course aware of its ongoing duty to disclose information relevant to the Claimant's claims. The EAT held that the nature and scope of any Orders made at a case management hearing must be identified from the written Order that is made following the hearing, rather than from anything that is said orally during the hearing. It is akin, in my judgment, to what was said in paragraph 11 on the preceding page in Judge Sage's Judgment, where she said: "11. 13. The Respondent denies that any Order for general disclosure was made on that occasion. He said that Employment Judge Crosfill erred in failing to mention and appearing to ignore the 23 May 2017 letter. Now, whilst I acknowledge that that might be a reference to no further specific Disclosure Order being made, the obvious inference from that Order, in my judgment, is that her understanding is that no Order has yet been made to cover full disclosure and that will not happen until there has been a decision made on the strike out and Deposit Order applications. His film roles include appearances in Sing (1989), Last Exit to Brooklyn (1989), The Marrying Man (1991), The Frighteners (1996), and Drowning Mona (2000), in addition to a cameo as Elvis Presley in Forrest Gump (1994). He was previously an executive Director and Head of Investment from May 2014.Experience: He began his career at Schroders and subsequently held roles at Newton Investment Management, JP Morgan Asset Management as Head of Global Equities and Multi-Asset and at Deutsche Asset Management as Global Chief Investment Officer. Three months later, on 25 August 2017, Mr Dobson wrote to the Employment Tribunal again, partly to resist an application for an Unless Order that had been made by the Respondent in relation to the preparation of an expert's report, and partly to seek an Order that the Respondent complied with the obligation to give standard disclosure under paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the Order of 19 April 2016. I can readily see how Mr Dobson came to the view that he has come to. Please be aware that certain types of cookies are necessary to browse our web site and therefore cannot be disabled. 29. Mr Dobson is adamant that he asked for standard disclosure and I am sure that is right, but that is not what has been ordered. Appointed in March 2020.Experience:He started his career with Credit Suisse First Boston in 1986. She has more than two decades of experience in the pharmaceuticals sector.Committee membership: Member of the Nominations and Audit and Risk Committees. During his researches, he came across references to American colonists in many previously unpublished English sources. Zach works in business development at TransPod, a company developing the next generation of ultra-high-speed tube transportation. Mr Dobson did not receive any reply from the Employment Tribunal to this letter. 60. As for the submissions made by Ms Bell on behalf of PWC, she submits that the key to this appeal is the meaning of the ruling made by Employment Judge Sage on 19 March 2016. Peter is related to Cathy Marnich and Patrick L Dobson as well as 2 additional people. Peter Dobson. The first point I have to make is that paragraphs 1 through to 2.4 of the Order of Employment Judge Sage are undoubtedly ambiguous and they are undoubtedly confused. In my judgment, Employment Judge Crosfill was right to take the view that, where an Employment Judge makes a written Order immediately following a Preliminary Hearing, it is the written Order not what he or she said orally at the hearing that matters. View Gina Dobson’s profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. Very helpfully, His Honour Judge Peter Clark summarised the issues for this appeal as being the following: "(1) Was Employment Judge Crosfill entitled to conclude, as a matter of construction, that the 'Sage Order' of 21 April 2016, paragraph 2, did not order standard disclosure; see paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 [of that Order]. It is unlikely and, in my view, not right to interpret that to mean that this Order is a reference to an Order made in paragraph 2.3 itself, because no such Order is made in paragraph 2.3. The possibility that documents might exist is a matter that can be canvassed in such a hearing. Mr Dobson has provided me with an affidavit in which he says that the Judge had said orally that she was ordering standard disclosure at the hearing on 19 April 2016. 51. 61. After this hearing, there followed correspondence between the parties and the Tribunal. 35. These were letters from the Employment Tribunal; some of which were plainly not Orders, and some of which were if not drafted by then commissioned by Employment Judge Sage. Appointed in March 2019. For what it is worth, I share Employment Judge Crosfill's view that it would have been a mistake, if it had been done, to Order general disclosure as early as April 2016, but that of itself is not a reason to set it aside. My interpretation of paragraph 2.1 is that EJ Sage has, perhaps unwisely, left it to the parties to co-operate on giving disclosure. There were other directions made, as I have said, including an Order for a bundle of documents for the September Preliminary Hearing and directions for expert forensic evidence. 22. 56. In 2018 ViiV Healthcare generated sales of £4.7 billion. Both of them have provided me with written and oral submissions, and I am grateful to them both for their submissions which have been of a high quality. Mr Dobson, in his arguments and affidavit tries valiantly to persuade me that EJ Sage made an order for standard disclosure whereby the parties would disclose all of the documents they have in their power possession and control relevant to any issue in dispute. 57. There is a reference to the fact that Mr Dobson had indicated that he intended to apply but had not yet applied for a number of Third Party Disclosure Orders. This time, the letter appears, on the face of it at least, to suggest that Employment Judge Sage believed she had given standard disclosure at the meeting at the Preliminary Hearing on 19 April 2016. He then raises the question of whether an Order had been made for standard disclosure. I believe that the final two paragraphs of paragraph 2 are simply debris from a standard template. 6. sign up for the employment cases update free weekly email newsletter. Very fairly, Mr Dobson acknowledged there is nothing on the face of this letter that indicates that it was written by Employment Judge Sage, and it seems to me that the most likely interpretation is that this was an official of the Employment Tribunal who, understandably perhaps, was confused by the terms of the April 2016 Order and had thought that it contained a general Order of disclosure. This page provides data about Amp Private Capital New Zealand Limited. 41. Mini Bio (1) Born in Red Bank, New Jersey, Peter Dobson's illustrious acting career began at the Academy of Dramatic Arts, and the Lee Strasberg institute in New York City. In paragraph 2.2 there is simply not really an Order at all. Again, the last two sub-paragraphs do not sit easily with the first two. However, I do not find that there has been any order for standard disclosure of all relevant documents. On 30 January, His Honour Judge Peter Clark ordered that the appeal be set down for a Full Hearing. Both parties have, very cleverly if I may say so, suggested that there was ambiguity in one of those two letters, the one that does not support them. It provides for a request for documents and a response. In my judgment, it is clear that the power to vary an Order is not akin to a right of appeal. In the event, the September 2016 Preliminary Hearing did not go ahead. 54. The point about the appeal before Judge Richardson is that he did deal with on the basis that the central issue was the consideration of the meaning and effect of 19 April Orders. Appeal dismissed. At paragraph 11 of her Order, Employment Judge Sage said, "I made the following case management orders by consent", then in brackets she added, "(Insofar as they are not made by consent, reasons were given at the time and are not now recorded)". Select this result to view Peter L Dobson's phone number, address, and more. Therefore, for all of those reasons, this appeal is dismissed. Before his retirement, he worked at the British Public Records Office (now The National Archives). ... payroll. This appeal was rejected on the sift by His Honour Judge David Richardson as being totally without merit. As for the question of the power to vary, if the Order had originally been made, Mr Dobson accepted that there was no apparent misdirection by Employment Judge Crosfill as regards Serco v Wells, but he submits that authority was misapplied. View the profiles of professionals named "Peter Dobson" on LinkedIn. On 23 May 2017, the Employment Tribunal replied saying: "Judge Sage confirms that paragraph 2.3 and 2.4 of the Case Management Order made at the preliminary hearing on the 19 April 2016, equates to standard disclosure in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Such applications are not intended to be and should not become a mini trial. I do not think it is significant that the parties did not query the Order of April 2016 until August 2016, because that is explained by the fact that, understandably, in both cases, they thought they understood it, albeit that their understanding was different. 23. Judge Richardson regarded it as a challenge to the 18 August letter rather than the ruling after the 14 August Preliminary Hearing. It follows that there was still a live issue as regards whether parts of the claim were to be struck out. Peter Dobson | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Experienced Associate at PwC | 294 connections | View Peter's homepage, profile, activity, articles This is that on 19 August 2017, Mr Dobson appealed against the letter from Employment Judge Sage dated 18 August 2017, and one of the rulings appealed against was that no Order for standard disclosure would be made in advance of the Preliminary Hearing to deal with the strike out. Therefore, in my judgment, looking at Employment Judge Sage's Order in isolation, it does not contain an Order for general disclosure. The answer to that, she says, is that he was so entitled. Member of the Nominations and Audit and Risk Committees. The delay that has taken place is not, of itself, usually a change of circumstances. He referred to paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of 19 April Order, and said that his understanding was that an Order for standard disclosure had been made which was required to be complied with by 28 June. The hearing of 19 April 2016 was the first case management hearing in this case. In my judgment, the best interpretation of this, therefore, is that Employment Judge Crosfill was right to take the view that paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 were the relics of a standard template which, in fact, had no purpose to serve in light of the unusual Orders that were made in paragraph 2.1 and the absence of any Order at all in paragraph 2.2. The central question was whether or not paragraph 2 of the Judge's Order was an Order for standard disclosure, as the Appellant contended it was. Committee membership: Member of the Nominations Committee. It will be for the Judge at the preliminary hearing to decide on whether further orders need to be made.". About Leveraging a successful track record of sales and delivery of some of the largest technology motivated transformations in the UK, Ireland, Australia and NZ, Marcus is an independent director and executive transformation advisor to public and private sector clients. This appeal is against the Order of Employment Judge Crosfill. She submits that this was a rare case in which, because of uncertainty, the Order should be set aside in the interests of justice. This order is made on the standard civil procedure rules basis which requires the parties to disclose all documents relevant to the issues which are in their possession, custody or control, whether they assist the party who produces them, the other party or appear neutral. It would almost never be appropriate to make an order of such potential magnitude in advance of an application under rules 37 and 39. Overview Nicholas Peter DOBSON is from Wellington in NEW ZEALAND and is, or was, associated with 75 or more companies including: AMP PENCARROW (NO. The parties, for example, had been unable to agree on the letter of instruction for the forensic expert. The Private Business Awards, sponsored by PwC and in association with HSBC Private Bank and Numis Securities Ltd., is now in its fifth successful year. In essence, in my judgment, what I have to do is decide whether Judge Crosfill erred in law in the interpretation he applied to the earlier Order of Employment Judge Sage. Born in Red Bank, New Jersey, Peter Dobson's illustrious acting career began at the Academy of Dramatic Arts, and the Lee Strasberg institute in New York City. Join Facebook to connect with Peter Dobson and others you may know. The Claimant also requested documents in relation to the issue of the £200,000 referred to in [his] letter dated the 6 April 2016 to the Tribunal, the Respondent refused to produce this documentation saying that it was a fishing expedition. For more information on what cookies we use and how they affect you, please visit our “Cookie policy”. To make a general order for disclosure before that time would be disproportionate.". View the profiles of people named Peter Dobson. Chris Boreham and Matthew Hall have both been made assurance partners. I start then with 19 April 2016. The difficulty with that is, in fact, no date for disclosure has been given above, and therefore there is nothing for the obligations set out in paragraph 2.4 to attach to. 30. PwC has continued to expand its Reading practice with a number of new partner and director promotions. The delay in the meantime had been because of the appeal to the EAT about third party disclosure. There was an issue regarding discovery and the parties had written in on the matter. One of the company's location is "Ground Floor,Pwc Tower,113-119 The Terrace 6011, Wellington,NZ". He left PwC to focus on litigation support work especially shareholder and relationship property disputes. 17. In the alternative, Ms Bell submits that Employment Judge Crosfill was entitled to set aside any such Order if it had been made. Dobson went on to join the summer stock Royal Shakespeare Company in Monterey CA, and found his way to Los Angeles to began studying with acting coach Sandra Seacat. He said this because of the general uncertainty that it has generated, the months of delay, and because, in his view, disclosure at this stage in the proceedings would be substantial, expensive and disproportionate. I think, however, it is helpful also to look at the next Order that she made in this matter on 4 August 2016. 48. 4. The first question is whether the first paragraph contains any order for disclosure at all. Even if it turned up very few documents. These necessary cookies do not collect any personal information about you. For obvious reasons, Mr Dobson relies in particular on paragraph 2.3, which states that, "This order is made on the civil standard civil procedure rules basis". 21. Employment Judge Crosfill said that if the Order had been an Order for general disclosure, he would have set it aside. I made the following case management orders by consent. 47. The awards recognise success and achievement within One of the company's officer is NICHOLAS PETER DOBSON.. This means a net decline of 6,001 — almost double the decline tracked in 2019. For the reasons given above, which are broadly the same as the reasons given by Employment Judge Crosfill, in my view there has been no Order for standard disclosure made in these proceedings. In any event the search would have to be extensive. In its audit practice, Tracey Keeble, Laura Pingree and Steven Roberts have all … The orders made in the Preliminary Hearing on the 19 April 2016 related to the issues that were identified in that hearing namely the issue of strike out or deposit order. More significant are the next two communications. On this occasion, there was also an application for a strike out by the Respondent on the ground that part of the claim was out of time and that the whole of the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. 24. As regards uncertainty, it seems to me the difficulty with that argument is that I would only have been addressing the Serco v Wells argument if I had come to the view that the correct interpretation of the Order was that it had been an Order for general disclosure. On the face of it, this letter appears to suggest that, at least so far as the Judge understood the position, no general Order for disclosure had been made in April 2016. He says also that there is no problem with an Order for general disclosure being made at a time when a further strike out hearing was envisaged, because there is always the possibility for a Tribunal to entertain an application to strike out at any stage in proceedings as the evidence develops. It seems to me that that is wholly unequivocal in stating that there is no Order for general disclosure. The Claimant made whitleblowing claims against the Respondent. It seems quite clear that there may be many thousands of documents in this case if all the allegations survive. That letter was couched in terms of seeking clarification. Gina has 1 job listed on their profile. The first issue that he had to deal with, which is not the issue before me, was what Employment Judge Sage had decided in relation to the strike out. 53. He is an experienced entrepreneur (Mile1) and former management consultant (PwC) with a proven track record building and operating businesses. To make a general order for disclosure before that time would be disproportionate". Employment Judge Sage confirms that paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the case management Order made at the Preliminary Hearing on 19 April equates to standard disclosure in the Civil Procedure Rules. She previously worked in PwC’s audit and insolvency practice before joining Electra in 1992.Committee membership: Chairman of the Audit and Risk Committee. This, on the face of it, does not suggest that the Judge was taking the view that there had already been a failure to comply with an existing general Disclosure Order. In paragraph 2.1, there is a reference to Mr Dobson being ordered to produce a request for documents by a certain date, then there is an Order that PWC provides a response to that request by a date about six weeks later. When selecting "Manage cookies" you are given the opportunity to accept only the categories of your choosing. It is the oral Order that is the key Order; the written Order was simply a confirmation of an Order that had already been made by consent. Employment Judge Crosfill decided that what had happened was that she decided to make no strike out or Deposit Orders except perhaps in relation to the allegations relating to surveillance and vandalism, in respect of which the applications would be considered at a later date. 55. Member of the Nominations and Remuneration Committees. The key documents will usually be the pleadings and contemporaneous documents. 33. In light of that, the question of whether Employment Judge Crosfill was right in the alternative to vary the Order of Employment Judge Sage does not arise. That is because, depending on the outcome of the strike out application, it may turn out that the general disclosure would have been unnecessary. He first joined the Board as a non-executive Director in April 2001.Experience: Prior to joining Schroders he was Chief Executive of Morgan Grenfell Group and a member of the Board of Managing Directors of Deutsche Bank AG.External appointments: Member of the President’s Committee of the Confederation of British Industry.Committee membership: Chairman of the Nominations Committee.
Fallout: New Vegas Explosives Magazine Locations, How To Turn Off Auto Capitalization In Word 2016, Advaita Vedanta Quotes, Genshin Impact Dandelion Seeds Not Respawning, The Sheik Orange Park Menu, Matty Matheson Tattoos, Hope We Can Do It Again Soon, Simple Yugioh Decks, 1980 Mongoose Bmx For Sale,