This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/06/rsa-appeal-employment-tribunal-payout-irish-subsidiary-insurance

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
RSA to appeal against €1.25m employment tribunal payout RSA to appeal against €1.25m employment tribunal payout
(about 7 hours later)
Insurance company RSA has described the award of €1.25m (£790,000) by an employment tribunal to the former head of its Irish business as astonishing as it launched an appeal against the potential payout.Insurance company RSA has described the award of €1.25m (£790,000) by an employment tribunal to the former head of its Irish business as astonishing as it launched an appeal against the potential payout.
Last month an employment tribunal awarded the sum to Philip Smith who resigned in November 2013 following accounting discrepancies that forced the insurance group to pump £200m into its Irish subsidiary. Last month, an employment tribunal awarded the sum to Philip Smith, who resigned in November 2013 following accounting discrepancies that forced the insurance group to pump £200m into its Irish subsidiary.
RSA said it fundamentally disagreed with the judgment and was seeking redress through the courts. “We are astonished by the amount of the award made by the tribunal which RSA believes is utterly inconsistent with that crucial finding and creates a dangerous precedent,” Derek Walsh, general counsel of RSA, said. RSA said it fundamentally disagreed with the judgment and was seeking redress through the courts. “We are astonished by the amount of the award made by the tribunal, which RSA believes is utterly inconsistent with that crucial finding and creates a dangerous precedent,” Derek Walsh, general counsel of RSA, said.
Smith had argued that he had not attempted to hide the way calculations were made about the possible claims the insurer could face and argued that the insurer had failed to listen to his side of the case. When he resigned he had said he was the “fall guy” for the accounting problems that eventually led to the £200m shortfall. Smith had argued that he had not attempted to hide the way calculations were made about the possible claims the insurer could face and argued that the insurer had failed to listen to his side of the case. When he resigned, he had said he was the “fall guy” for the accounting problems that eventually led to the £200m shortfall.
“Contrary to the impression given by the tribunal decision, no one at RSA group level had any prior knowledge of the inappropriate large loss reserving practices which emerged in RSA Ireland. RSA group would never have condoned such practices,” said Walsh.“Contrary to the impression given by the tribunal decision, no one at RSA group level had any prior knowledge of the inappropriate large loss reserving practices which emerged in RSA Ireland. RSA group would never have condoned such practices,” said Walsh.
“We continue to believe that Mr Smith’s case is without merit and in the circumstances have no option but to appeal the judgment.”“We continue to believe that Mr Smith’s case is without merit and in the circumstances have no option but to appeal the judgment.”