I'm not sure if I have a case here or not, or who it should be directed at. Hopefully, this isn't too confusing, but if anyone can help me in which direction I should head...
So there is a company which I will call Company A. They enlist the services of Company B. I work forCcompany B but my salary comes from Company A, even though all my contracts and invoices, etc., are strictly with Company B. Also, within Company A are other business that are unrelated to Company B in any way, but everyone is housed in the same building.
What has happened is one of these businesses is claiming that someone has tampered with their computer systems and caused malicious damage. They have called in there own IT support and they have diagnosed the problem as it has been done by someone who had physical access to the system and therefore, it must be someone working in the building. Whilst not naming anyone directly, they have implied that it has to be someone that has very specific knowledge or training in the area which narrows it down significantly.
Company A, acting on this information, has looked at security footage and concluded that I was the only one in the building at the time, therefore, it must be me. The police were called and I was charged with the crime. Company A has then gone to Company B and told them that I was responsible for the damage and that they had to fire me as I was no longer allowed in the building and my company compiled with their wishes.
So here's where it gets interesting, after my lawyer and I went off the evidence supplied by the IT company. We were able to deduce that they have either, through gross incompetence or in a deliberate effort to cover their own mistakes (cause if it wasn't the scenario they put forward, then the only other explanation is it was errors they made setting the system up), essentially mislead Company A and the Police which lead to my arrest.
Neither the Police or Company A sort any other experts to look over the evidence, and have just accepted on face value everything that these IT people have said, as they viewed them as experts in the field. They don't meet the criteria of experts under any definition, either through qualifications or experience in the field, a fact neither the police or Company A bothered to verify.
So, my question is, given the fact that I will win my case and be found innocent, who do I go after here for defamation and unfair dismissal? Is it Company A for telling Company B, my company, to sack me and what has happened before I had even gone to court? Is the IT guys due to their statements of a poorly diagnosed explanation of what's happened, or even the police for charging me after a fairly bad investigation?
I have lost my job, my reputation and have little chance of getting work in that very small industry for a long while. My skills are specialized and really only applicable to that industry, so at 45, I'm facing the fact that I have to rebuild my career from the ground up.
The problem, as I see it, is each group seems to have a valid excuse as to why they acted in the way that they did. The IT guys will argue that even if they did misdiagnose the data, they never named me as the culprit. Company A and the police will say they only acted on the information they were given and therefore they had just cause to name me, and Company A will also say they didn't lie to my company when they told them I had been charged with a crime.
Do I have any course of action here? Can I even get my court costs covered somehow?
So there is a company which I will call Company A. They enlist the services of Company B. I work forCcompany B but my salary comes from Company A, even though all my contracts and invoices, etc., are strictly with Company B. Also, within Company A are other business that are unrelated to Company B in any way, but everyone is housed in the same building.
What has happened is one of these businesses is claiming that someone has tampered with their computer systems and caused malicious damage. They have called in there own IT support and they have diagnosed the problem as it has been done by someone who had physical access to the system and therefore, it must be someone working in the building. Whilst not naming anyone directly, they have implied that it has to be someone that has very specific knowledge or training in the area which narrows it down significantly.
Company A, acting on this information, has looked at security footage and concluded that I was the only one in the building at the time, therefore, it must be me. The police were called and I was charged with the crime. Company A has then gone to Company B and told them that I was responsible for the damage and that they had to fire me as I was no longer allowed in the building and my company compiled with their wishes.
So here's where it gets interesting, after my lawyer and I went off the evidence supplied by the IT company. We were able to deduce that they have either, through gross incompetence or in a deliberate effort to cover their own mistakes (cause if it wasn't the scenario they put forward, then the only other explanation is it was errors they made setting the system up), essentially mislead Company A and the Police which lead to my arrest.
Neither the Police or Company A sort any other experts to look over the evidence, and have just accepted on face value everything that these IT people have said, as they viewed them as experts in the field. They don't meet the criteria of experts under any definition, either through qualifications or experience in the field, a fact neither the police or Company A bothered to verify.
So, my question is, given the fact that I will win my case and be found innocent, who do I go after here for defamation and unfair dismissal? Is it Company A for telling Company B, my company, to sack me and what has happened before I had even gone to court? Is the IT guys due to their statements of a poorly diagnosed explanation of what's happened, or even the police for charging me after a fairly bad investigation?
I have lost my job, my reputation and have little chance of getting work in that very small industry for a long while. My skills are specialized and really only applicable to that industry, so at 45, I'm facing the fact that I have to rebuild my career from the ground up.
The problem, as I see it, is each group seems to have a valid excuse as to why they acted in the way that they did. The IT guys will argue that even if they did misdiagnose the data, they never named me as the culprit. Company A and the police will say they only acted on the information they were given and therefore they had just cause to name me, and Company A will also say they didn't lie to my company when they told them I had been charged with a crime.
Do I have any course of action here? Can I even get my court costs covered somehow?
