Phil Mibbutz
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,860
- Likes
- 58
Don't know about links, but It's on the page that opens trade2win.com.
ODL Markets
- Thread starter ODL Markets
- Start date
- Watchers 44
Don't know about links, but It's on the page that opens trade2win.com.
UKtradergirl
Established member
- Messages
- 825
- Likes
- 147
Ivan Gekko
Junior member
- Messages
- 28
- Likes
- 1
ODL Securities Limited, To be approached with caution.
I have also had issues with ODL Securities London. I opened an advisory account under Options and Equities. After three months of trading i was down 50%, most of that was down to commissions and charges.
Frank Freeman and his colleague Mark Knight at ODL advisory options desk will only want your money and don't give a care if lose.
The above brokers work as half-commission men.
As Mr Davidson said in his book, How to win as a stock market speculator....."The worst offenders are sometimes called half-commission men, so-called because they split commissions earned on stock deals, perhaps 50:50 basis with their firm through which they put business. If they don not sell shares, they don't eat and desperation can lead to poor recommendations, sales pressure and general corruption. I know city firms where this happens every day."
Please read the following by Alexander Davidson.
Advisory Brokers.
The dodgy brokers trade as often as possible, regardless of whether it is in your interest. They may try to persuade you to sell one stock to reinvest the proceeds in another. If a broker can manipulate you into suggesting the move yourself, he or she cannot so easily be accused of churning, which is excessive dealing to generate commission, a practice forbidden under the rules of the Financial Services Authority.
The sharp operators will hint – without stating for certain – that a stock is expected to rise enormously in the near future. This way, they will in practice be covered if the client later complains. Do not allow yourself to be misled by their practised techniques.
Do not rely on the regulators to protect you against dubious stockbrokers. Some sharp operators slip through the net. Some operate from offices in secret locations abroad, using a telephone switching office to handle customer calls. Such bucket shops use the Internet combined with telesales to sucker investors into buying dud shares. The pretext is often the IPO of a young high-tech company. Once the broker has your money, it no longer wants to know. Visit the web site for McWhortle Enterprises (McWhortle Enterprises, Inc.) as a nerve-wracking but absolutely safe lesson in what I am saying.
I have also had issues with ODL Securities London. I opened an advisory account under Options and Equities. After three months of trading i was down 50%, most of that was down to commissions and charges.
Frank Freeman and his colleague Mark Knight at ODL advisory options desk will only want your money and don't give a care if lose.
The above brokers work as half-commission men.
As Mr Davidson said in his book, How to win as a stock market speculator....."The worst offenders are sometimes called half-commission men, so-called because they split commissions earned on stock deals, perhaps 50:50 basis with their firm through which they put business. If they don not sell shares, they don't eat and desperation can lead to poor recommendations, sales pressure and general corruption. I know city firms where this happens every day."
Please read the following by Alexander Davidson.
Advisory Brokers.
The dodgy brokers trade as often as possible, regardless of whether it is in your interest. They may try to persuade you to sell one stock to reinvest the proceeds in another. If a broker can manipulate you into suggesting the move yourself, he or she cannot so easily be accused of churning, which is excessive dealing to generate commission, a practice forbidden under the rules of the Financial Services Authority.
The sharp operators will hint – without stating for certain – that a stock is expected to rise enormously in the near future. This way, they will in practice be covered if the client later complains. Do not allow yourself to be misled by their practised techniques.
Do not rely on the regulators to protect you against dubious stockbrokers. Some sharp operators slip through the net. Some operate from offices in secret locations abroad, using a telephone switching office to handle customer calls. Such bucket shops use the Internet combined with telesales to sucker investors into buying dud shares. The pretext is often the IPO of a young high-tech company. Once the broker has your money, it no longer wants to know. Visit the web site for McWhortle Enterprises (McWhortle Enterprises, Inc.) as a nerve-wracking but absolutely safe lesson in what I am saying.
I just read the ODL review. Through the years I have never had an account closed on 'unethical' grounds, yes they can put you on referral to a dealer, but that is another story altogether. One has to be careful of all the negative inputs that is is posted on this forum. He/she should post the email from ODL confirming that this has actually happened. It should be mentioned that I do not trade with ODL.
Phil Mibbutz
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,860
- Likes
- 58
Yes, 'unethical' is a very strange word to use, and you tend to wonder if the FSA would be interested to know that a regulated company seems to be accusing its clients of something dishonest (... in the unlikely event of the FSA being remotely concerned about anything to do with spread betting, of course...)?
arabianights
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,721
- Likes
- 1,380
From the bottom of the ODL website:
Important Notice - Scalping / Sniping EAs
ODL allows and has been at the forefront of enabling the use of Expert Advisors (EAs) on our trading platforms. This applies to EAs that trade the market fairly.
Unfortunately we have recently uncovered some potentially unethical trading or possible market abuse via certain EAs. We are currently investigating this. As per our Terms of Business Agreement with Clients, we reserve the right to suspend and terminate accounts at our discretion. This is particularly significant where unethical trading or possible market abuse is prevalent using these certain EAs, other EAs are not affected and we welcome you to continue using your account.
Important Notice - Scalping / Sniping EAs
ODL allows and has been at the forefront of enabling the use of Expert Advisors (EAs) on our trading platforms. This applies to EAs that trade the market fairly.
Unfortunately we have recently uncovered some potentially unethical trading or possible market abuse via certain EAs. We are currently investigating this. As per our Terms of Business Agreement with Clients, we reserve the right to suspend and terminate accounts at our discretion. This is particularly significant where unethical trading or possible market abuse is prevalent using these certain EAs, other EAs are not affected and we welcome you to continue using your account.
arabianights
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,721
- Likes
- 1,380
I've decided to open an account with ODL as apparently they let you spread bet wine, I'm gonna short that mother****er all the way down I think 
Yes, it doesn't look good. Apparently one has to be careful signing up and trading with this company.
arabianights
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,721
- Likes
- 1,380
I just signed up for an account with them!
An expert advisor is as a plug-in for in this case the Metatrader 4 platform. The purpose of Expert Advisors is to automate your trading system. If I am not mistaken the Metatrader 4 platform is for trading CFDs with ODL, not for SB.
Ivan Gekko
Junior member
- Messages
- 28
- Likes
- 1
ODL SECURITIES ARE A SCAM, findings from other Forums. BEWARE!!!
Felix Homogratus, USA
Rating: No Rating
Date of Post: 2006-05-04
Review: I do not have any experience with this broker. If you have used them, please kindly submit your review above.
David, Texas
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-12-23
Review: I received my money two days after they stopped my trading and I asked them to wire the balance to my checking account, so I will raise my rating of them for being honest. Other than stopping my trading when I was doing very well, I am fairly happy with ODL.
2008-12-20 1 Star I have been with ODL for about a year and fairly happy with them even though I have not been very successful in making money. At long last, I think I figured out how to make successful trades and started making a lot of money. Yesterday the broker called and shut me down because he said they didn't appreciate my method of scalping the market although that is what I have been doing all last year but without much success. It seems to me that as long as you are losing money they will treat you well, but start making money and you are a threat to them.
I haven't received my money yet, but will post that experience when and if it arrives.
Michel, Japan
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-12-11
Review: ODL is a BIG SCAM,they manipulate the spreads in almost the time.like EURGBP 15 pips,EURCHF 10 pips .Keep out from them if you want trade successfully.Move your account to another Broker like FXDD where them spreads are fixed and have good execution.
Macdonald Duke, London
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-11-24
Review: ODL are not to be dealt with. I had an account with them and they kept blocking me out before significant market moves. When I closed my account the balance of £720 which was in the account was never refunded, I complained but they insisted they had refunded the money. When I asked for the account that was refunded to they gave me a totally different account number to the one I had. When I told them that this was not my account and they knew it they became rude and abusive.
Charles, USA
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-11-21
Review: I've been using ODL for over a year and have no complaints. Looks like there are a LOT of losers on here who insist on shooting the messenger. If you cannot trade, you cannot trade regardless of the broker you use.
The Fixed spreads are nice and tight, limit orders are ALWAYS respected. (Even during weekend gaps) which is a PLUS compared to some other brokers.
For those who say they constantly keep getting "requote", well, they must not know how to use the MT4 platform, and you can set a maximum deviation which will eliminate most if not all MARKET order requotes. I personally would try to trade LIMIT orders as much as possible that way you are guaranteed your entry/exit prices. MARKET orders during news events will guarantee you the worst possible price as ODL has a direct conflict of interest.
When I want to withdraw money it comes out very fast. All-in-all, ODL is one of the best fixed spread brokers out there.
JAB, Charlotte, NC
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-11-18
Review: I have had an account with ODL for five months now. I should have seen the writing on the wall. First, I funded my account with $2,000 with a debit card, those funds were immediately returned to me and I received a $60 charge. After several calls and emails, I had to fund the account with a check - the $60 charge was never refunded, the broker stated it was a charge from Bank of America.
Now, I made four more deposits over the past week, today I received four more unexpected/unapproved charges. I inquired again, the broker stated these were BoA charges. I called BoA, they stated, under no uncertain terms, that these were not BoA charges and suggested I file a fraud claim.
In addition, I too have noticed several requotes (this is the only forex broker I've had, I thought it was a market condition, not a broker issue). Now that I try to withdraw the funds in my account, I have to fill out and fax back a form requesting a check.
I'm going to dig out of this issue and find a reputable broker with top reviews from Forex Peace Army.
I have recently found out that compliance managers have either left or been fired in the past copule of months.
Stay away, as others have posted SCAM.
peter, staffordshire uk
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-10-13
Review: odl is an excellent platform. very solid and reliable.spreads are good and I trade currencies and oil.Slippage happens ocasionally but only round news time and I dont trade things like non farm etc.
Service from the tech guys is excellent and I switch easily from demo to live and back.I have been on several other platforms and only cms with visual trader is as good.
Alot of people need to realise it is not a game it is real.Occasionally things can go wrong in life just learn to protect as best you can and you are ok with odl
Robbed, Canada
Rating: No Rating
Date of Post: 2008-05-11
Review: Will not rate this broker.
I have an acct with them for more than 2 years, it was OK when I lost some money and you can trade whatever you want so long as you keep losing. When my acct changed from losing to winning position, things changed, e.g. you are not allowed to trade news and even worse they start stop-loss-hunting, I was stolen some good pips by them in this way. Recently they raised their stop loss limit from 5 pips to 10 pips without any notice.
I totally agree with that post found below:
"Roger, Europe
Date of Post: 2007-10-11
Review: This compnay are not interested in profitable forex traders. The platforms Metatrader/Currenex are not in the real market so if you make money it comes out of their pocket. If you lose it goes into their pocket!"
Their spread is great, I have to admit, at the same time this also can serve as a bait.
Because of their apparent manipulation of price, I'm to withdraw my fund and to find an HONEST broker somewhere...
Adam, California, USA
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-04-03
Review: I've used ODL for about 3 months and have not had a problem with this broker. Their spreads are the best among all brokers and they stay fixed. They have 2 pip spreads on so many major pairs.
Felix Homogratus, USA
Rating: No Rating
Date of Post: 2006-05-04
Review: I do not have any experience with this broker. If you have used them, please kindly submit your review above.
David, Texas
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-12-23
Review: I received my money two days after they stopped my trading and I asked them to wire the balance to my checking account, so I will raise my rating of them for being honest. Other than stopping my trading when I was doing very well, I am fairly happy with ODL.
2008-12-20 1 Star I have been with ODL for about a year and fairly happy with them even though I have not been very successful in making money. At long last, I think I figured out how to make successful trades and started making a lot of money. Yesterday the broker called and shut me down because he said they didn't appreciate my method of scalping the market although that is what I have been doing all last year but without much success. It seems to me that as long as you are losing money they will treat you well, but start making money and you are a threat to them.
I haven't received my money yet, but will post that experience when and if it arrives.
Michel, Japan
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-12-11
Review: ODL is a BIG SCAM,they manipulate the spreads in almost the time.like EURGBP 15 pips,EURCHF 10 pips .Keep out from them if you want trade successfully.Move your account to another Broker like FXDD where them spreads are fixed and have good execution.
Macdonald Duke, London
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-11-24
Review: ODL are not to be dealt with. I had an account with them and they kept blocking me out before significant market moves. When I closed my account the balance of £720 which was in the account was never refunded, I complained but they insisted they had refunded the money. When I asked for the account that was refunded to they gave me a totally different account number to the one I had. When I told them that this was not my account and they knew it they became rude and abusive.
Charles, USA
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-11-21
Review: I've been using ODL for over a year and have no complaints. Looks like there are a LOT of losers on here who insist on shooting the messenger. If you cannot trade, you cannot trade regardless of the broker you use.
The Fixed spreads are nice and tight, limit orders are ALWAYS respected. (Even during weekend gaps) which is a PLUS compared to some other brokers.
For those who say they constantly keep getting "requote", well, they must not know how to use the MT4 platform, and you can set a maximum deviation which will eliminate most if not all MARKET order requotes. I personally would try to trade LIMIT orders as much as possible that way you are guaranteed your entry/exit prices. MARKET orders during news events will guarantee you the worst possible price as ODL has a direct conflict of interest.
When I want to withdraw money it comes out very fast. All-in-all, ODL is one of the best fixed spread brokers out there.
JAB, Charlotte, NC
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-11-18
Review: I have had an account with ODL for five months now. I should have seen the writing on the wall. First, I funded my account with $2,000 with a debit card, those funds were immediately returned to me and I received a $60 charge. After several calls and emails, I had to fund the account with a check - the $60 charge was never refunded, the broker stated it was a charge from Bank of America.
Now, I made four more deposits over the past week, today I received four more unexpected/unapproved charges. I inquired again, the broker stated these were BoA charges. I called BoA, they stated, under no uncertain terms, that these were not BoA charges and suggested I file a fraud claim.
In addition, I too have noticed several requotes (this is the only forex broker I've had, I thought it was a market condition, not a broker issue). Now that I try to withdraw the funds in my account, I have to fill out and fax back a form requesting a check.
I'm going to dig out of this issue and find a reputable broker with top reviews from Forex Peace Army.
I have recently found out that compliance managers have either left or been fired in the past copule of months.
Stay away, as others have posted SCAM.
peter, staffordshire uk
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-10-13
Review: odl is an excellent platform. very solid and reliable.spreads are good and I trade currencies and oil.Slippage happens ocasionally but only round news time and I dont trade things like non farm etc.
Service from the tech guys is excellent and I switch easily from demo to live and back.I have been on several other platforms and only cms with visual trader is as good.
Alot of people need to realise it is not a game it is real.Occasionally things can go wrong in life just learn to protect as best you can and you are ok with odl
Robbed, Canada
Rating: No Rating
Date of Post: 2008-05-11
Review: Will not rate this broker.
I have an acct with them for more than 2 years, it was OK when I lost some money and you can trade whatever you want so long as you keep losing. When my acct changed from losing to winning position, things changed, e.g. you are not allowed to trade news and even worse they start stop-loss-hunting, I was stolen some good pips by them in this way. Recently they raised their stop loss limit from 5 pips to 10 pips without any notice.
I totally agree with that post found below:
"Roger, Europe
Date of Post: 2007-10-11
Review: This compnay are not interested in profitable forex traders. The platforms Metatrader/Currenex are not in the real market so if you make money it comes out of their pocket. If you lose it goes into their pocket!"
Their spread is great, I have to admit, at the same time this also can serve as a bait.
Because of their apparent manipulation of price, I'm to withdraw my fund and to find an HONEST broker somewhere...
Adam, California, USA
Rating:
Date of Post: 2008-04-03
Review: I've used ODL for about 3 months and have not had a problem with this broker. Their spreads are the best among all brokers and they stay fixed. They have 2 pip spreads on so many major pairs.
Ivan Gekko
Junior member
- Messages
- 28
- Likes
- 1
ODL SECURITIES LTD APPELLANT
(1) MR P BROOKS RESPONDENT
(2) MR C BURGESS
(3) MR P GERSH
(4) MR N LAKING
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant
MR JAMES LADDIE
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Messrs Simmons & Simmons Solicitors
City Point
One Ropemaker Street
London EC2Y 9SS
For the Respondent
MR PAUL NICHOLLS
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Messrs. Payne Hicks Beach Solicitors
10 New Square
Lincoln’s Inn
London WC2A 3QC
SUMMARY
Practice and Procedure - Disclosure
Disclosure / further information sought. Relevance of material /information to issues in case (Constructive s.103A ERA automatically unfair dismissal). Possible P.1.1./ confidentiality claim by relevant authorities.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
This case is presently proceeding in the Stratford Employment Tribunal. The parties are Mr Brooks and three others, Claimants, and ODL Securities Ltd, Respondent. I shall so describe them. There is before me an appeal by the Respondent against an interim order made by a Chairman, Mr M F Haynes, at a case management hearing held on 4 May 2007 refusing the Respondent’s application for an order for disclosure of documents, alternatively an order for additional information to be provided by the Claimants as set out at paragraph 7(i) of the Chairman’s reasons dated 16 May.
Background
By his claim form ET1 Mr Brooks asserted that he together with his co-Claimants formed a team of fixed income traders employed by an associate company of ODL, and that as a result of making certain protected disclosures the Claimants were subjected to conduct by the Respondent entitling them to terminate their employment in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal. Those resignations took effect on 6 June 2006. It is contended that those dismissals were automatically unfair under s103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Compensation for such unfair dismissal if found is unlimited. The total sum claimed by the Claimants is in the order of £8.8m. This is therefore a substantial claim.
Within the particulars given of Mr Brooks’ case were allegations that he was threatened by a friend of Mr John Paul Thwaytes, a Director of the Respondent, a man called Ben Cotton. So concerned was the Claimant by these threats, made in May 2006, that he states, paragraph 26 of his claim form particulars, “that he was provided with a uniformed armed police guard”. I note that this aspect of the Claimants’ case is specifically referred to at paragraph 3.10 of the Claimants’ updated List of Issues for a substantive hearing of this contested claim. It is described as an issue going to the question whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed. It is there said ‘that the Respondent failed to take grievances and concerns about, among other things, threats seriously or to act appropriately in response’. Mr Laddie has also taken me to passages in Further Particulars provided by the Claimant which indicate to me that the threats also form part of the basis for at least two of the disclosures relied on by the Claimant as protected disclosures.
The original specific request for disclosure was made by the Respondent’s solicitors by a letter dated 20 April 2007. They requested of the Claimant all documents in relation to his alleged complaint to the police in relation to alleged harassment and/or threats including any police reports and any details of any of the Claimants being provided with a uniformed armed police guard as pleaded at paragraph 26 of Mr Brooks’ particulars of claim. The request specified, without limiting the inquiry, a witness statement made to the police by any of the Claimants, the crime reference number allocated by the police and the address of the police station at which the crime report was made.
The Claimants’ solicitors’ response on 27 April was that the Claimants had no such documents “but in so far as specific disclosure is sought the Claimants have no objection to this request in so far as it relates to any documents within their custody, care or control which are not privileged from disclosure”. Further correspondence ensued but the matter was not resolved between the parties. Hence the issue arose for determination by the Chairman at the case management discussion (CMD) held on 4 May 2007. I have been provided with a note of the relevant part of that discussion prepared by Miss Finn of the Respondent’s solicitors with apparently some input from Mr Laddie, who appeared on behalf of the Respondent at that hearing. The note is not agreed by the Claimants who were then represented by their solicitor Mr McRoberts. In one respect, to which I will return, there is a material dispute. In the event it does not seem to me that that dispute requires resolution for the purpose of this appeal for reasons which I shall come to.
The discussion proceeded on the basis that the Respondent’s request was by way of disclosure, alternatively a request for additional information. Reading Miss Finn’s note I have the distinct impression Mr McRoberts found himself in some discomfort. Miss Finn’s note records that he said “We haven’t said no documents” but that is challenged by Mr McRoberts in correspondence. Mr McRoberts objected to the release of documents or information because his clients were not at liberty to talk about this or about the police. He said that the discussion was about an on-going investigation and if the Respondent’s really wanted to pursue this he would have to stop and could reveal no more. Asked by the Chairman whether his difficulty was as a solicitor or because the police had asked him to keep the matter confidential, he replied delphically that the difficulty was how that affects him. Asked specifically what legal obligation required him not to reveal the details of the police investigation, Mr McRoberts replied that it was a national security issue involving Government agencies and if the Respondent’s representative wished to discuss it he preferred to go through the managing partner of his firm. Later Mr McRoberts said that he was willing to suggest that the Claimants could strike through the reference to the armed guard but that suggestion did not satisfy Mr Laddie; and today, Mr Nicholls has made it quite clear that the Claimants’ case before the Tribunal at the substantive hearing due to commence on 2 July will involve raising allegations of threats. Those threats, insofar as they are said to be attributable to the Respondent, are denied by the Respondent, are denied by the Respondent.
The Chairman’s Reasoning
In refusing the Respondent’s application for disclosure/further information, the Chairman gave his reasons in writing at paragraph 7(i), as follows
“The Chairman, putting aside for the purposes [of] his decision the difficulties referred to, [that is by Mr McRoberts] decided that it was not appropriate to make an order for disclosure of these matters. Firstly, they did not relate directly to the issues in the case. The First Claimant [Mr Brooks] had not made a protected disclosure about this, nor was it, in itself, probative that any of the Respondents’ alleged actions towards him had occurred. It was therefore not relevant or proportionate to order that there should be any such disclosure or that any further information should be given on the matter. Any concerns that the Respondent s have can be raised in cross examination at the hearing.
The Appeal
I begin with the Chairman’s Reasons. The following questions it seems to me arise. (1) Do the Claimants have documents or information relating to the Respondent’s request? (2) If so, is that material relevant to the issues in the case? (3) Is it proportionate to make the orders sought? The answers to those questions appear to me to be: (1) Whether or not the Claimant has those documents does not determine whether or not it is appropriate to make the order. On the contrary, it may well be that an order of the Tribunal will concentrate the mind of the Claimant. In any event, this is an alternative application and it seems to me highly unlikely that the Claimant does not know the crime reference number and details of the police station at which he reported the alleged threats in or about June 2006. (2) Yes. The issues as to threats made to Mr Brooks and the Respondent’s response to his concerns about those alleged threats feature in the Claimant’s form ET1; in the Further & Better Particulars, where they are identified in relation to two of the disclosures relied on; and, specifically, in the Claimant’s own List of Issues (paragraph 3.10). (3) Yes. It seems to me that there can be no basis for suggesting that if the material is relevant it is disproportionate to make the orders requested. I accept Mr Laddie‘s construction of the Chairman’s Reasons that the expression “relevant or proportionate” must be taken conjunctively despite the use of the word ‘or’. It would not be proportionate to order disclosure or additional information if it were not relevant.
I have in mind the test which must be passed before this Appeal Tribunal can interfere with the undoubted discretion granted to the Employment Tribunal Chairman. The principles are summarised by Wood J in Adams & Rayner v West Sussex County Council [1999] IRLR 215, a discovery case, and I should cite a passage referred to in Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law Vol V paragraph T1687 from the Court of Appeal decision in Noorani v Merseyside TEC Ltd [1999] IRLR 184. In relation to the limited scope for appeals against the exercise of a Tribunal’s discretion in respect of interim decisions the Court said:
“Such decisions are essentially challengeable only on what loosely may be called Wednesbury grounds when a Court at first instance exercised the discretion under a mistake of law or disregarded principle or under a misapprehension as to the facts, where they took into account irrelevant matters or failed to take into account relevant matters or where the conclusion reached was outside the generous ambit within which a reasonable disagreement is possible.”
On the critical question of relevance, I am quite satisfied that the Chairman was under a misapprehension as to the way in which the case was being put on behalf of the Respondent. It was not enough in my view to take the narrow line that the question of an armed guard outside the Claimant’s home was not relied on directly in relation to any of the issues in the case. The point being made by the Respondent was that there was a material issue as to whether or not the Claimant had been subjected to threats, and in particular threats by the Respondent or its agents. The account which he gave to the police, if a complaint was made may be material when compared with the account given in these proceedings. The question as to whether or not he received an armed guard may again go to the seriousness with which it may be inferred the threats, as reported, were taken by the police. But the short point is, as the Chairman accepted and acknowledged, these were matters which the Respondent had a legitimate interest in raising in cross examination of the Claimant. In order to effectively cross-examine it is right, and the fairness of the hearing requires, that the Respondent has as much material for that purpose by way of disclosure or additional information as it is proper to order. The finding that this was not relevant to the issues in the case, in my judgment, is wholly impermissible to the extent that it offends the Wednesbury principles.
The issue that the Chairman put aside was in my judgment the real issue in this application. It was raised by Mr McRoberts at the hearing below and is pursued by Mr Nicholls on behalf of the Claimant in responding to this appeal. It is whether the information requested was subject to any form of public interest immunity or confidentiality such that the Claimant ought not to be required to disclose either documents or information sought in this application.
Mr Nicholls makes the very fair point that if there is such an immunity or confidentiality it attaches not to the Claimant in these proceedings but to the agencies involved. That is an aspect of the case that has troubled me. I say straight away that apart from that aspect I would have no hesitation in allowing this appeal and exercising my powers under s35(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 making the order sought by the Respondent. However, there is no representative of any of the interested agencies joined in this appeal nor present to make formal representations.
I should recount in this judgment that a public servant was present in court and on the application of Mr Nicholls, notwithstanding resistance by Mr Laddie, I saw that public servant in private. I do not propose to disclose his identity or anything that I heard from him
It does seem to me that there should be a form of protection extended to the agencies involved. In these circumstances, I adopt the proposal put forward by Mr Laddie, subject to a small variation suggested by Mr Nicholls. The order I make is that the appeal is allowed. I shall make the order for disclosure and/or further information as sought by Mr Laddie, the precise terms of which may be agreed between Counsel and attached to my order. However, that order will not take effect before 4.00 pm on Monday 25 June 2007. That will allow the relevant authorities to apply on paper marked for my attention to be joined as parties having an interest in this appeal and there will be liberty to any parties whom I join to apply to vary or revoke the order which I have just made. Mr McRoberts, the solicitor for the Claimant, has helpfully undertaken to notify all the relevant authorities known to him of this order and its effect forthwith so that the applications may be made if thought appropriate. Failing any such application, the order will take effect from 4 pm on 25 June. What I shall make clear in the order is that any application to be joined must be made on notice to the parties.
(1) MR P BROOKS RESPONDENT
(2) MR C BURGESS
(3) MR P GERSH
(4) MR N LAKING
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant
MR JAMES LADDIE
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Messrs Simmons & Simmons Solicitors
City Point
One Ropemaker Street
London EC2Y 9SS
For the Respondent
MR PAUL NICHOLLS
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Messrs. Payne Hicks Beach Solicitors
10 New Square
Lincoln’s Inn
London WC2A 3QC
SUMMARY
Practice and Procedure - Disclosure
Disclosure / further information sought. Relevance of material /information to issues in case (Constructive s.103A ERA automatically unfair dismissal). Possible P.1.1./ confidentiality claim by relevant authorities.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK
This case is presently proceeding in the Stratford Employment Tribunal. The parties are Mr Brooks and three others, Claimants, and ODL Securities Ltd, Respondent. I shall so describe them. There is before me an appeal by the Respondent against an interim order made by a Chairman, Mr M F Haynes, at a case management hearing held on 4 May 2007 refusing the Respondent’s application for an order for disclosure of documents, alternatively an order for additional information to be provided by the Claimants as set out at paragraph 7(i) of the Chairman’s reasons dated 16 May.
Background
By his claim form ET1 Mr Brooks asserted that he together with his co-Claimants formed a team of fixed income traders employed by an associate company of ODL, and that as a result of making certain protected disclosures the Claimants were subjected to conduct by the Respondent entitling them to terminate their employment in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal. Those resignations took effect on 6 June 2006. It is contended that those dismissals were automatically unfair under s103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Compensation for such unfair dismissal if found is unlimited. The total sum claimed by the Claimants is in the order of £8.8m. This is therefore a substantial claim.
Within the particulars given of Mr Brooks’ case were allegations that he was threatened by a friend of Mr John Paul Thwaytes, a Director of the Respondent, a man called Ben Cotton. So concerned was the Claimant by these threats, made in May 2006, that he states, paragraph 26 of his claim form particulars, “that he was provided with a uniformed armed police guard”. I note that this aspect of the Claimants’ case is specifically referred to at paragraph 3.10 of the Claimants’ updated List of Issues for a substantive hearing of this contested claim. It is described as an issue going to the question whether the Claimant was constructively dismissed. It is there said ‘that the Respondent failed to take grievances and concerns about, among other things, threats seriously or to act appropriately in response’. Mr Laddie has also taken me to passages in Further Particulars provided by the Claimant which indicate to me that the threats also form part of the basis for at least two of the disclosures relied on by the Claimant as protected disclosures.
The original specific request for disclosure was made by the Respondent’s solicitors by a letter dated 20 April 2007. They requested of the Claimant all documents in relation to his alleged complaint to the police in relation to alleged harassment and/or threats including any police reports and any details of any of the Claimants being provided with a uniformed armed police guard as pleaded at paragraph 26 of Mr Brooks’ particulars of claim. The request specified, without limiting the inquiry, a witness statement made to the police by any of the Claimants, the crime reference number allocated by the police and the address of the police station at which the crime report was made.
The Claimants’ solicitors’ response on 27 April was that the Claimants had no such documents “but in so far as specific disclosure is sought the Claimants have no objection to this request in so far as it relates to any documents within their custody, care or control which are not privileged from disclosure”. Further correspondence ensued but the matter was not resolved between the parties. Hence the issue arose for determination by the Chairman at the case management discussion (CMD) held on 4 May 2007. I have been provided with a note of the relevant part of that discussion prepared by Miss Finn of the Respondent’s solicitors with apparently some input from Mr Laddie, who appeared on behalf of the Respondent at that hearing. The note is not agreed by the Claimants who were then represented by their solicitor Mr McRoberts. In one respect, to which I will return, there is a material dispute. In the event it does not seem to me that that dispute requires resolution for the purpose of this appeal for reasons which I shall come to.
The discussion proceeded on the basis that the Respondent’s request was by way of disclosure, alternatively a request for additional information. Reading Miss Finn’s note I have the distinct impression Mr McRoberts found himself in some discomfort. Miss Finn’s note records that he said “We haven’t said no documents” but that is challenged by Mr McRoberts in correspondence. Mr McRoberts objected to the release of documents or information because his clients were not at liberty to talk about this or about the police. He said that the discussion was about an on-going investigation and if the Respondent’s really wanted to pursue this he would have to stop and could reveal no more. Asked by the Chairman whether his difficulty was as a solicitor or because the police had asked him to keep the matter confidential, he replied delphically that the difficulty was how that affects him. Asked specifically what legal obligation required him not to reveal the details of the police investigation, Mr McRoberts replied that it was a national security issue involving Government agencies and if the Respondent’s representative wished to discuss it he preferred to go through the managing partner of his firm. Later Mr McRoberts said that he was willing to suggest that the Claimants could strike through the reference to the armed guard but that suggestion did not satisfy Mr Laddie; and today, Mr Nicholls has made it quite clear that the Claimants’ case before the Tribunal at the substantive hearing due to commence on 2 July will involve raising allegations of threats. Those threats, insofar as they are said to be attributable to the Respondent, are denied by the Respondent, are denied by the Respondent.
The Chairman’s Reasoning
In refusing the Respondent’s application for disclosure/further information, the Chairman gave his reasons in writing at paragraph 7(i), as follows
“The Chairman, putting aside for the purposes [of] his decision the difficulties referred to, [that is by Mr McRoberts] decided that it was not appropriate to make an order for disclosure of these matters. Firstly, they did not relate directly to the issues in the case. The First Claimant [Mr Brooks] had not made a protected disclosure about this, nor was it, in itself, probative that any of the Respondents’ alleged actions towards him had occurred. It was therefore not relevant or proportionate to order that there should be any such disclosure or that any further information should be given on the matter. Any concerns that the Respondent s have can be raised in cross examination at the hearing.
The Appeal
I begin with the Chairman’s Reasons. The following questions it seems to me arise. (1) Do the Claimants have documents or information relating to the Respondent’s request? (2) If so, is that material relevant to the issues in the case? (3) Is it proportionate to make the orders sought? The answers to those questions appear to me to be: (1) Whether or not the Claimant has those documents does not determine whether or not it is appropriate to make the order. On the contrary, it may well be that an order of the Tribunal will concentrate the mind of the Claimant. In any event, this is an alternative application and it seems to me highly unlikely that the Claimant does not know the crime reference number and details of the police station at which he reported the alleged threats in or about June 2006. (2) Yes. The issues as to threats made to Mr Brooks and the Respondent’s response to his concerns about those alleged threats feature in the Claimant’s form ET1; in the Further & Better Particulars, where they are identified in relation to two of the disclosures relied on; and, specifically, in the Claimant’s own List of Issues (paragraph 3.10). (3) Yes. It seems to me that there can be no basis for suggesting that if the material is relevant it is disproportionate to make the orders requested. I accept Mr Laddie‘s construction of the Chairman’s Reasons that the expression “relevant or proportionate” must be taken conjunctively despite the use of the word ‘or’. It would not be proportionate to order disclosure or additional information if it were not relevant.
I have in mind the test which must be passed before this Appeal Tribunal can interfere with the undoubted discretion granted to the Employment Tribunal Chairman. The principles are summarised by Wood J in Adams & Rayner v West Sussex County Council [1999] IRLR 215, a discovery case, and I should cite a passage referred to in Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law Vol V paragraph T1687 from the Court of Appeal decision in Noorani v Merseyside TEC Ltd [1999] IRLR 184. In relation to the limited scope for appeals against the exercise of a Tribunal’s discretion in respect of interim decisions the Court said:
“Such decisions are essentially challengeable only on what loosely may be called Wednesbury grounds when a Court at first instance exercised the discretion under a mistake of law or disregarded principle or under a misapprehension as to the facts, where they took into account irrelevant matters or failed to take into account relevant matters or where the conclusion reached was outside the generous ambit within which a reasonable disagreement is possible.”
On the critical question of relevance, I am quite satisfied that the Chairman was under a misapprehension as to the way in which the case was being put on behalf of the Respondent. It was not enough in my view to take the narrow line that the question of an armed guard outside the Claimant’s home was not relied on directly in relation to any of the issues in the case. The point being made by the Respondent was that there was a material issue as to whether or not the Claimant had been subjected to threats, and in particular threats by the Respondent or its agents. The account which he gave to the police, if a complaint was made may be material when compared with the account given in these proceedings. The question as to whether or not he received an armed guard may again go to the seriousness with which it may be inferred the threats, as reported, were taken by the police. But the short point is, as the Chairman accepted and acknowledged, these were matters which the Respondent had a legitimate interest in raising in cross examination of the Claimant. In order to effectively cross-examine it is right, and the fairness of the hearing requires, that the Respondent has as much material for that purpose by way of disclosure or additional information as it is proper to order. The finding that this was not relevant to the issues in the case, in my judgment, is wholly impermissible to the extent that it offends the Wednesbury principles.
The issue that the Chairman put aside was in my judgment the real issue in this application. It was raised by Mr McRoberts at the hearing below and is pursued by Mr Nicholls on behalf of the Claimant in responding to this appeal. It is whether the information requested was subject to any form of public interest immunity or confidentiality such that the Claimant ought not to be required to disclose either documents or information sought in this application.
Mr Nicholls makes the very fair point that if there is such an immunity or confidentiality it attaches not to the Claimant in these proceedings but to the agencies involved. That is an aspect of the case that has troubled me. I say straight away that apart from that aspect I would have no hesitation in allowing this appeal and exercising my powers under s35(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 making the order sought by the Respondent. However, there is no representative of any of the interested agencies joined in this appeal nor present to make formal representations.
I should recount in this judgment that a public servant was present in court and on the application of Mr Nicholls, notwithstanding resistance by Mr Laddie, I saw that public servant in private. I do not propose to disclose his identity or anything that I heard from him
It does seem to me that there should be a form of protection extended to the agencies involved. In these circumstances, I adopt the proposal put forward by Mr Laddie, subject to a small variation suggested by Mr Nicholls. The order I make is that the appeal is allowed. I shall make the order for disclosure and/or further information as sought by Mr Laddie, the precise terms of which may be agreed between Counsel and attached to my order. However, that order will not take effect before 4.00 pm on Monday 25 June 2007. That will allow the relevant authorities to apply on paper marked for my attention to be joined as parties having an interest in this appeal and there will be liberty to any parties whom I join to apply to vary or revoke the order which I have just made. Mr McRoberts, the solicitor for the Claimant, has helpfully undertaken to notify all the relevant authorities known to him of this order and its effect forthwith so that the applications may be made if thought appropriate. Failing any such application, the order will take effect from 4 pm on 25 June. What I shall make clear in the order is that any application to be joined must be made on notice to the parties.
BrainStorm
Junior member
- Messages
- 44
- Likes
- 1
So what was the outcome being as this is 2 years old? Have you started proceedings yet? Hows that going?
springheeledjack
Junior member
- Messages
- 18
- Likes
- 2
Well, I'm having these same logout problems and it's over a YEAR since this was first brought to your attention on these forums. The problem isn't fixed.
I do, however have a novel idea that has been to used to great effect to solve IT problems in a plethora of other industries. :idea:
1. Contact IT contractors.
2. Explain what the problem is.
2. Pay them when they've solved it.
Genius! May I now be "financially compensated" for "signifcantly assisting" you?
Phil Mibbutz
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,860
- Likes
- 58
Too late, Mike...
I just want to add to this thread that a very close friend of mine has been a client for several months and is not happy with ODL Markets for a range of reasons. He is also a customer of CMC and IG Index, which aren't exactly good either (but better than ODL he says).
Nonetheless, I'm disappointed to know that he does not recommend ODL as I trust his judgement and had hoped that he'd have good news about them. I was waiting for his word of advice, before thinking of signing up, especially given all the credit checking kerfuffle; after all, one can't just open accounts with everyone willy nilly, without its negatively affecting one's credit score.
Frankly, it's a shame his experiences have not been good as I'm still very keen to find a replacement for CMC and IG. ODL should realise that as a relative newcomer to spreadbetting (compared to the heavyweights) they really should be pulling out all the stops to win what customers they have over. What the other spread betting companies are losing customer loyalty from is exactly what a relative newcomer should be excelling at.
One disappointed customer for whatever reasons equals many potential customers who are turned off from joining. Why can't the newer spread betting companies wake up to this most elemental concept of marketing, and do their best to be the best???
Nonetheless, I'm disappointed to know that he does not recommend ODL as I trust his judgement and had hoped that he'd have good news about them. I was waiting for his word of advice, before thinking of signing up, especially given all the credit checking kerfuffle; after all, one can't just open accounts with everyone willy nilly, without its negatively affecting one's credit score.
Frankly, it's a shame his experiences have not been good as I'm still very keen to find a replacement for CMC and IG. ODL should realise that as a relative newcomer to spreadbetting (compared to the heavyweights) they really should be pulling out all the stops to win what customers they have over. What the other spread betting companies are losing customer loyalty from is exactly what a relative newcomer should be excelling at.
One disappointed customer for whatever reasons equals many potential customers who are turned off from joining. Why can't the newer spread betting companies wake up to this most elemental concept of marketing, and do their best to be the best???
Yes I agree, to acquire new clients is very expensive today, as the competition is mounting up. This can be seen by the many good introductory offers. The problem is that many traders blame the SB indefinitely for their own lack of trading experience. It is very easy to direct your frustration for your own mistakes in trading, towards the SB you are dealing with. People are essentially taking too much risk in their trading, and when it fails, you will see many of these traders on this forum complaining. As for ODL, The complaints mostly seem to be of a technical art. Of course there are some traders that will try to run their own agenda on a forum like this, against a SB company, whom they have a complaint against.
What is not good is that ODL's representative on this forum seems to be in hiding. After a very good start he/she just vanish from the forum. This is definitely not a healthy way of promoting your company or building up a client base.
Last edited:
