When legal responsibilities are as clear as daylight, denial becomes not just a weak defence—but a reflection of poor governance. In the ongoing dispute between a former shareholder-employee and Himal Food Ltd, the defendant has chosen to reject all legal and contractual responsibilities—despite overwhelming evidence, statutory obligations, and signed agreements.
At the centre of the claim are three undeniable facts:
A 10% shareholding was transferred in good faith based on a written £10,000 agreement. Only £7,000 was paid.
The claimant worked actively in the business, with video, payslips, and bank statements to prove it. Yet, statutory holiday pay remains unpaid.
The claimant was summarily dismissed without notice or procedure, a direct breach of UK employment law.
And yet, Himal Food Ltd has adopted a posture of complete denial—stating the £7,000 paid was a “gesture” and refusing to recognise the claimant as an employee despite documented payroll involvement.
This response is not just flawed—it’s legally untenable.
UK law protects employees through legislation like the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998. These aren’t optional guidelines—they are enforceable obligations. By refusing to acknowledge the claimant’s entitlement to notice pay and accrued holidays, Himal Food Ltd demonstrates either a wilful ignorance or a careless disregard for basic employer duties.
Moreover, the attempt to redefine a contractual share purchase payment as a “gesture” lacks any basis in commercial or corporate law. You cannot reframe a legally binding transaction after the fact, especially not when you’ve benefited from the share transfer. That is not only bad practice—it may be seen as bad faith.
What’s more telling is the defendant’s failure to provide any formal evidence in their defence. While the claimant has can present agreements, bank transfers, and employment records, the defendant has offered vague assertions without documentation—while avoiding mediation for weeks before suddenly agreeing.
This behaviour isn’t just weak procedurally—it undermines their credibility entirely.
Mediation exists to avoid escalation, but it only works when both sides engage honestly. When one party arrives with documents, legal references, and a willingness to resolve—and the other arrives with nothing but denial—mediation becomes a formality before judgment.
Himal Food Ltd’s leadership has failed to uphold its duties—both contractual and legal. That failure is now being tested not just in conversation, but under scrutiny of court process, statute, and evidence.
Whether resolved in mediation or through the court, one thing is already clear: denial is not a defence when the law is against you.
