HAC in todays Indy

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
Oh dear. Well at least Help for Heroes will do well out of it:

Independent Article:
'Harassed' female soldier wins damages award


By Jan Colley, Press Association

A female soldier who claimed she suffered psychiatric injury because of harassment by colleagues has won £6,983 damages.

Donna Rayment, who had been offered nearly nine times that to settle the case by the Ministry of Defence, immediately said that she would give the whole award to charity - including the war wounded organisation Help for Heroes.

Ms Rayment, 41, alleged that three senior officers wanted to drive her out of the Honourable Artillery Company (HAC), where she held the rank of lance sergeant until she was dismissed in June 2005 while on sick leave for stress.

She claimed at London's High Court that she developed adjustment disorder and depression because of her treatment, and sought damages for her lost employment as the commanding officer's driver.

But Mrs Justice Nicola Davies said that Ms Rayment, of Rose Road, Canvey Island, Essex, was only entitled to £5,000 damages in respect of three events which exacerbated her recurrent depression to a mild to moderate degree for nine months.

These related to a meeting in May 2004 when she was wrongly told she no longer had the driver's job and had to repay a month's salary and the "unfair and unjust" circumstances in which she was issued a final written warning in February 2005 and later discharged.

The judge also made an award of £500 for the distress caused to Ms Rayment by the blown-up framed pornographic photos displayed on the walls of the rest room used by drivers.

The court heard that Ms Rayment, the only permanent female driver, took down the photos, repainted the room, and generally made it a civilised place to sit in, but they were put up again until she complained to the Regimental Sergeant Major.

The judge dismissed Ms Rayment's claim for loss of earnings as she accepted the MoD's argument that she was unsuited to the driver's role and it was highly unlikely that she would have successfully completed her probationary period.

She commented: "There were faults on both sides. The claimant was a challenging employee, those who worked with her were increasingly frustrated by her attitude and conduct, and on occasions this showed.

"In 2003 to 2004, the claimant presented as a woman well able to challenge that which she did not accept and accustomed to military establishments where robust language could be used."

The balance of the award was made up of sums for travel expenses, complementary medical treatment and interest.

After the ruling, Wendy Outhwaite QC for the MoD, which denied negligence and harassment, told the judge that Ms Rayment had turned down a "rather generous" pre-trial offer of £60,000 damages and £125,000 costs to settle the case.

She said that the MoD's costs, up to December, stood at £91,000, while those of Ms Rayment's lawyers, who took the case on a conditional fee agreement, were estimated at £400,000.

Arguing that each side should pay its own legal bill, Ms Outhwaite said that out of 21 allegations of negligence and 42 of harassment, Ms Rayment had succeeded on only four matters.

"The defendant has been put to enormous cost facing this blunderbuss approach", said counsel.

"We say we are the real winner as the MoD successfully defended more than 90% of the claim."

Ms Rayment's counsel, Andrew Hogarth QC, said that the MoD had waited two and a half years before making an offer and Ms Rayment had established that she had been harassed, although she had lost her case on the amount of damages.

During the trial, he had told the court: "Our case is that these three may well be officers, but they certainly do not behave in this matter as though they were gentlemen."

Ms Rayment's solicitors said later that whatever the judge ruled on costs, she would keep her £6,983.

Ms Rayment, the single mother of a profoundly deaf 15-year-old daughter, joined the Territorial Army in 1987 and worked as a civilian employee in the stores of the HAC's London complex before she enlisted as a non-regular permanent staff soldier in April 2004.

She said that she was not disappointed with the outcome.

"I've never done it for money, I've always done it for the justice side. "

She said that she would give all the award to charity - to Help for Heroes and local charities where she lived.
 
#2
Nice result for H4H but chicks like this boil my blood. What happened to a time where a mans workplace could be adorned with such images without a woman bleating over it. Don't like it? Don't do the fcuking job. Go and sit behind a desk and look pretty or whatever it is you birds do. Why is it when a woman doesn't get her own way she starts crying depression and bullying.


This is the reason this country is going down the pan.
 
#3
the_beer_man said:
Nice result for H4H but chicks like this boil my blood. What happened to a time where a mans workplace could be adorned with such images without a woman bleating over it. Don't like it? Don't do the fcuking job. Go and sit behind a desk and look pretty or whatever it is you birds do. Why is it when a woman doesn't get her own way she starts crying depression and bullying.


This is the reason this country is going down the pan.
Is your watch set to 1895?
 
#4
You got to question what she actually 'won'. According to the article she turned down an out of court settlement of £60,000 damages and £125,000 costs. And what did she end up with? £5000 for damages plus another £500 for the distress caused by the nudie pics. Good thing for her that the law firm took on the case as a conditional fee agreement.

Lessons learned? If the MoD offer you £185000 up front, farking well take it!
 
#9
I mauy be wrong here but if that offer of 60k was a part 36 offer she has won (much) less so will get clobbered for costs.

The fact that her CFA lawyers costs are £400k compared to the £91k shows what is wrong with the CFA system; if she loses costs does that mean her lawyers get nought?

Good on the judge IMHO.
 
#10
msr said:
the_beer_man said:
Nice result for H4H but chicks like this boil my blood. What happened to a time where a mans workplace could be adorned with such images without a woman bleating over it. Don't like it? Don't do the fcuking job. Go and sit behind a desk and look pretty or whatever it is you birds do. Why is it when a woman doesn't get her own way she starts crying depression and bullying.


This is the reason this country is going down the pan.
Is your watch set to 1895?
I suppose in her defence she didn't object to wearing offensive/agressive DPM or working with working classes, so she did exhibit some tolerance.
 
#11
polar said:
msr said:
the_beer_man said:
Nice result for H4H but chicks like this boil my blood. What happened to a time where a mans workplace could be adorned with such images without a woman bleating over it. Don't like it? Don't do the fcuking job. Go and sit behind a desk and look pretty or whatever it is you birds do. Why is it when a woman doesn't get her own way she starts crying depression and bullying.


This is the reason this country is going down the pan.
Is your watch set to 1895?
I suppose in her defence she didn't object to wearing offensive/agressive DPM, so she did exhibit some tolerance.
Is yours set to 1910?
 
#12
My guess is that she would have been advised by her lawyers to turn down the offer- clearly they expected to make a killing. How sad.

As I understand it, these 'no win-no fee' cases are backed by insurers rather than the shysters4U companies. A few more sensible judgements like this and they might be a bit hesitant before bringing some of the more frivilous cases to court.

Having said that, she sounds like someone that the HAC was better of without but at the same time, the porn on the wall aspect was a lawsuit waiting to happen.
 
#14
yep just matching her attitude.... she doesn't appear to have asked for the pics to be removed (they were framed 8O !!), just removed em and painted the place...

admittedly they should have taken them down beforehand.
 
#15
polar said:
yep just matching her attitude.... she doesn't appear to have asked for the pics to be removed (they were framed 8O !!), just removed em and painted the place...

admittedly they should have taken them down beforehand.
1960... nearly there :)
 
#16
I can hear the comments.. Heh lads we've some HAC lass turning up next, we need to smarten up the place...

Better frame the porn then
 
#17
This particular " lady" was reasonably" well accquainted" with more than a few chaps from 31 SIGS and 10 PARA back in the days of the Duke of Yorks hq
surprised the porn upset her.....
 

Latest Threads

New Posts