Cummins Confidential Special : Jiten Kotecha, Cummins’ Senior Counsel With The Dirty File

By /

Cummins’ employment fight with Lee Thompson – yes, me – did not run on vibes. It ran through solicitors, settlement tactics, in-house legal decisions, external muscle, counsel choices, dirty documents, courtroom pressure and procedural force. Gowling WLG handled the case first. Rayner Jones later brought the lowball stink. Wendy Miller KC brought the serious-crime-grade courtroom steel. Employment Judge Sweeney supplied the judgment. But sitting closer to the Cummins control panel was Jiten Kotecha, Senior Counsel – Labour and Employment (Europe), the man whose quiet title matters because this file did not harden by magic.

Some people make noise. Others write the cheque. The dangerous ones choose who gets sent into the room.

Jiten Kotecha has not been the loudest name in the Cummins employment saga, which is exactly why he now deserves a turn under the light. Rayner Jones brought the employer-side charm of a man whose own website publicly described settling a race claim cheaply. Wendy Miller KC became the serious-crime-grade legal artillery Cummins eventually deployed against a disabled litigant in person. Employment Judge Sweeney then supplied the official version Cummins needed.

Kotecha was quieter. However, quiet does not mean minor. In his last settlement-stage email to me, Kotecha signed himself as Senior Counsel – Labour and Employment (Europe). Public sources also place him inside Cummins’ legal and employment-law world. The Law Society lists Jiten Kotecha as an in-house solicitor at Cummins Ltd. Wiza describes him as Corporate Counsel for Labour & Employment across the UK and Europe.

So let’s stop pretending this was some small legal player in a little Cummins office cupboard. This was not a local HR clerk nervously stapling forms together. Instead, this was European labour-and-employment legal gravity inside a multinational diesel giant.

I spent enough time dealing with Cummins to know this: quiet can mean senior. It can mean strategic too. Most importantly, quiet can mean the person who lets other people take the public heat while the machine keeps moving.

Let’s be precise.

Jiten Kotecha was not some background name copied into an email chain by accident. He signed as Senior Counsel – Labour and Employment (Europe). That is the title: Senior Counsel, Labour and Employment, Europe.

This was not decorative. It was not admin either. Nobody should mistake that title for some legal-office ornament sitting beside the printer while the real decisions happened elsewhere.

Employment disputes do not escalate themselves. Low offers do not magically appear. External solicitors do not appoint themselves. King’s Counsel does not materialise in a tribunal room because the legal fairy got bored. Somewhere inside the company, somebody approves the posture, weighs the risk, and helps decide whether to settle, squeeze, escalate, brief heavier counsel, or let the process itself become part of the punishment.

In my case, Kotecha sat close to that lane.

He was not the mouth.

He was the plumbing.

And if the plumbing carries sewage, TCAP is not going to keep admiring the tiles.

First Came Gowling WLG, Then Came The Cheap-Settlement Smell

At first, Cummins’ legal handling did not have the Rayner Jones flavour.

The case was initially handled by Gowling WLG. Whatever else I say about Cummins, Gowling WLG’s tone was not the issue. They were polite. Conventional. Professional enough. It felt like a large company using a large external firm to manage an employment dispute without turning every letter into a pub-car-park sales pitch.

Then the file moved.

I do not know why it moved from Gowling WLG to Rayner Jones, and this article is not going to invent a reason. Maybe it was cost. Maybe it was tactics. Perhaps it was internal preference. Cummins can explain that if it wants.

What matters is the change in legal smell.

Rayner Jones’ own website did not exactly hide the employer-side appetite. His public material tells businesses they can save a small fortune on employment tribunals and court claims by getting employment-law and HR advice early. His case-study page describes a freight company facing unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed, and the race claim was, in his own words, settled cheaply.

Settled cheaply.

Not resolved fairly. No mention of it being concluded sensitively. Not settled proportionately after careful assessment of harm, risk and evidence.

Cheaply.

There is a whole rotten little worldview sitting in that word. A discrimination claim becomes a discount problem. A claimant becomes a number to squash. Harm becomes something to buy off at a pleasing price. The employer-side trophy is not justice. It is getting out with the smallest possible dent in the wallet.

So when my case moved from polite big-firm handling to that kind of legal energy, I noticed.

Of course I noticed.

Because when a company accused of disability discrimination moves from Gowling WLG to a solicitor whose public marketing is comfortable saying a race claim was settled cheaply, that tells you something about the room the claimant has been dragged into.

TCAP came later. The blog did not witness the case in real time. It now publishes the record that Cummins, its lawyers and the tribunal process helped create.

The £15,000 Lowball, The £30,000 Ceiling And The £90,000 Counter

I am not going to reproduce without-prejudice correspondence line by line. The point here is the shape, not the protected script.

The first number was a test.

The lowball came in at £15,000.

In my view, that was not a serious valuation of what Cummins had done. It was not a serious number for the facts, the disability context, the harm, the medical position, the procedural history, or the reputational exposure of a multinational company already very skilled at pretending bad things are isolated paperwork events.

Instead, it was a test.

A little corporate fishing line dropped into the water to see whether I would bite, panic, fold, sign, disappear and let Cummins file the whole thing under “resolved”.

I straight-batted it away.

Cummins came back at £30,000.

Doubled.

Just like that.

Let’s be adult about this. A company does not move from £15,000 to £30,000 in a blink because it thinks the first number was holy. It moves because the first number was a lowball. A probe. A cheap little employer-side punt dressed up as settlement realism.

Then I countered at £90,000.

That was not some lottery-ticket demand fired into the sky for sport. It was, in my view, a fair compromise for someone whose wages Cummins had fucked with, whose case involved what I say were “recreated” letters used to justify it, and whose disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claim sat inside a much uglier factual mess than Cummins ever wanted properly examined.

Cummins stuck at £30,000.

No movement.

Not a serious reassessment.

No recognition that the first number had already been exposed as nonsense and the second number was still nowhere near enough.

It just held the line.

And that matters, because the case almost certainly stopped being cheap once Cummins started dragging people into the machinery. Witnesses from around the country. External lawyers. In-house legal time. Counsel. Preparation. Hearing time. Management distraction. The corporate theatre of defending the indefensible rarely comes with a discount code.

So Cummins was not simply refusing to pay me properly.

It was choosing to spend money fighting instead.

Thirty Grand Was Not Nuisance Money

And £30,000 is not nothing.

It is not a nuisance-value tenner slipped under the door with a petrol-station sandwich. It is real money. In fact, it is enough money to tell a different story from the later fairy tale that this was just a bad claimant, bad tone, bad suspicion, bad conduct, bad everything except Cummins.

TCAP is not saying a settlement offer proves legal liability.

TCAP is saying the movement from £15,000 to £30,000 exposed commercial fear.

It exposed risk and value. It exposed the fact that Cummins knew this was not just noise from some crank it could laugh off over coffee. If it had truly been the clean little innocence parade later implied by the judgment, why move like that? Why double? Why test the water with £15,000, then return at £30,000 when the first fishing trip failed?

Because Cummins knew there was something to buy.

It just wanted it cheap.

Then, when £30,000 did not work and I countered at £90,000, Cummins made the more revealing choice. It did not bridge the gap. And it did not look at the likely cost of a full fight and think, “maybe paying properly is cleaner, cheaper and less grotesque”.

It dug in.

Which means the company was prepared to pour money into the war rather than put it into settlement.

That is not innocence.

That is posture.

Somewhere, Somebody Was Making Decisions For Cummins

This is the part Cummins cannot launder by hiding behind external names.

Gowling WLG did not move the file by magic. Rayner Jones did not appear from a puff of employer-side smoke. Wendy Miller KC did not arrive because a barrister-shaped cloud passed over the tribunal. The settlement numbers did not crawl out of the printer by themselves. Nor did the posture harden because gravity fancied a go.

Someone decided the £15,000 approach was worth trying. Then Cummins watched it fail. The offer rose to £30,000. I countered at £90,000 and slightly lower. Cummins refused to move. After that, the next phase was not proper commercial resolution. It was escalation.

TCAP’s point is simple: the senior European labour-and-employment legal name in that chain was Jiten Kotecha.

That does not mean TCAP claims to have sat in every internal meeting. It does not mean TCAP claims Kotecha personally whispered every tactical instruction into every lawyer’s ear. Cummins can publish the internal decision tree if it wants to educate the room.

But the known shape is clear enough.

The external faces changed. However, the Cummins file stayed the same, and so did the senior European labour-and-employment legal gravity behind it.

The title at the bottom of Kotecha’s own correspondence was not “legal assistant”, “HR adviser” or “random bloke copied in because someone needed a footer”. It was Senior Counsel – Labour and Employment (Europe).

That is the lane.

The control point.

That is why this article exists.

The Dirty File Was Not Just A Metaphor

The title is not decorative.

When TCAP calls this the dirty file, it is not just talking about tone, pressure or the usual corporate legal unpleasantness. TCAP says the Cummins case file included fabricated documents. Cummins itself conceded it did! Not documents I merely disliked. Not documents I found inconvenient. Documents that were manufactured, “recreated”, relied upon, and then pushed through the tribunal machinery against a disabled litigant in person.

Worse, the metadata mattered.

On my case, the file evidence showed documents edited after the dispute had already begun. That should have set every alarm bell ringing in the building. Instead, Employment Judge Seamus Sweeney accepted Cummins’ explanations for those edits, treated the stink as if it had been sprayed with judicial air freshener, and let the documents sit inside the record.

I had already complained about him.

And he was told.

That matters. Because once a litigant has complained about the judge, and the judge knows it, the optics of that judge then accepting the employer’s explanations, rejecting the claimant’s case, and producing a judgment this hostile do not exactly scream clean distance, open mind and institutional calm.

Then came the Newcastle court scandal, and the building found a new way to stink.

District Judge Andrew Simpson was later removed from judicial office after findings of gross misconduct involving court staff, including unwanted physical contact, inappropriate communications and sending a highly sexualised image. That is not some unrelated perfume drifting in from another county. That is Newcastle court filth leaking through the floorboards.

TCAP is not saying Sweeney was Simpson. It is not saying Sweeney was involved. It is not saying Sweeney was not involved either. That is not the point. The point is that my judgment came out of a court environment that now has its own public rot on the record: judges, staff, complaints, power imbalance, hierarchy, procedure, and the familiar institutional habit of wiping the counter while the meat rots underneath.

So no, Simpson does not prove what Sweeney did in my case.

He proves the building had a smell.

And my judgment came out of that building.

In my view, Sweeney did not merely get it wrong. He gave Cummins the judgment it needed.

A dirty file deserved scrutiny.

What it got was a dirty judgment.

I am expected to call that judicial reasoning.

I call it dirty as fuck.

The whole stinking court building was dirty as fuck. Simpson is just the symptom that leaked from it.

That is where the phrase stops being rhetorical and starts feeling like a filing cabinet with something dead behind it.

Because this was not just rough litigation. It was not merely a hard-edged defence. It was a disability discrimination and unfair dismissal case where I say admitted “recreated” letters, post-dispute metadata issues and dirty file tactics were allowed to become part of the official machinery.

Wendy Miller KC’s tactics did not happen in a vacuum. TCAP says those tactics included relying on that dirty material and applying pressure in ways that were always likely to hit harder against someone with an anxiety disorder, fatigue issues and disability-related vulnerability in a two-week hearing.

Pressure Is Not Experienced Equally

The packed courtroom matters in that context.

Because this was not a neat little one-hour dispute about office stationery. It was a two-week employment tribunal hearing involving disability discrimination and unfair dismissal, with a disabled litigant in person on one side and Cummins’ legal machine on the other.

Packing the room, increasing the atmosphere, amplifying the pressure, and letting the whole thing feel bigger, heavier and more hostile was not neutral from the receiving end.

It was pressure.

And pressure is not experienced equally.

A multinational, its senior European labour-and-employment legal function, external lawyers and Wendy Miller KC can call that litigation. TCAP calls it what it felt like: using the room, the file and the imbalance as weapons.

Because when the paperwork looks like it was pulled from the wastepipe, nobody walks into court with clean hands.

You bring gloves.

Muscle.

You bring every weapon available.

After The £90,000 Counter, Cummins Chose War

After I countered at £90,000, Cummins stuck at £30,000.

That is the fork in the road.

A company genuinely trying to resolve a serious dispute could have moved. It could have treated the counter as the start of adult negotiation. It could have weighed the disability context, the wage issue, the “recreated” letters, the metadata stink, the hearing risk, the witness burden and the cost of dragging people from around the country into a tribunal fight.

Instead, Cummins chose the expensive road.

Witnesses. Lawyers. Preparation. Hearing time. Management time. Counsel. The whole corporate pageant.

At some point, the fight itself probably cost Cummins more than the gap it refused to close. That is the insanity sitting underneath this file. The company would rather spend money constructing a defence than spend money ending the dispute properly.

Then the file got meaner.

Eventually, Cummins deployed Wendy Miller KC.

Not some ordinary employment-law presence brought in to calmly tidy up a modest workplace dispute. Wendy Miller KC’s public profiles advertise employment, crime, fraud, business and financial crime, organised crime and terrorism, serious sexual offences, severe criminal cases, sexual offences, offences against the person including murder, corporate fraud, and cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses and experts. 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square says she was previously a senior Grade 4 prosecutor in criminal courts.

That is not soft-focus employment-law wallpaper.

That is serious-crime-grade courtroom force.

So ask the obvious question. Why did a diesel multinational need that kind of legal artillery against a disabled litigant in person in an employment tribunal?

The answer is not flattering.

Because by then, Cummins was no longer just trying to settle cheaply.

It was trying to win expensively.

Wendy Miller KC Was Not A Soft Option

TCAP is not pretending Wendy Miller KC lacked employment-law credentials. St Philips has published her success in an age and sex discrimination tribunal claim, plus a later strike-out success in a complex employment tribunal matter involving whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and insolvency issues.

That is not the problem.

The problem is worse.

Cummins selected someone whose public selling point was not merely employment law. It was employment law fused with serious criminal advocacy, prosecution background, tactical cross-examination and high-stakes litigation. One testimonial on her St Philips profile says she made the opposing barrister look like an amateur.

Cummins did not even face an opposing barrister.

It faced me.

Disabled. Unrepresented. Exhausted. Litigating against a multinational employer. Trying to navigate procedure, health, evidence, credibility attacks, tribunal pressure and a case where I say fabricated documents sat in the file.

That was not neutral, innocent or proportionate in any normal moral language.

A disabled litigant in person stood on one side.

Cummins and Wendy Miller KC stood on the other.

Lovely little employment case, was it?

The Anxiety Pressure Point Did Not Stop With Cummins

There is another reason TCAP now reads this strategy the way it does.

Wendy Miller KC did not only appear in the Cummins lane. She also later acted for Cepac Ltd, another TCAP-linked dispute where, on my account, anxiety, disability-related emotional dysregulation and pressure tactics again became part of the wider legal atmosphere.

That matters because the chronology is ugly.

Cummins came first.

Cepac came later.

In Cummins, I say the case involved a disabled litigant in person with anxiety and fatigue issues facing a packed courtroom, a two-week hearing, disputed and allegedly fabricated material, procedural pressure and a King’s Counsel whose public profile advertises serious-crime-grade courtroom force.

Later, in Cepac, I say the same pressure logic surfaced again: take the claimant’s stress response, anxiety, anger and disability-related dysregulation, then treat the reaction as the problem rather than the conduct that triggered it.

Different company. Same legal operator, tactically deployed by Horsfield Menzies, a separate pack of cunts who already have their own place in the ledger. Same useful trick.

Create pressure, watch the disabled claimant react, then invite the system to stare at the reaction instead of the pressure.

TCAP is not saying Cummins and Cepac ran one joined-up script. It does not need to.

Cepac came later than Cummins, when I was attempting a return to working life after a traumatic tribunal experience. That context matters. I had already been through the Cummins hearing. I had already dealt with the pressure, the judgment, the disability dispute, the credibility attacks and the fallout. Then the same barrister appeared again, in another dispute, while my disability-related reactions were later reframed as the problem.

The point is colder than conspiracy.

When the same barrister appears in both disputes, and both disputes feature my disability-related reactions being reframed as conduct problems, the pattern is fair game.

Because exploiting anxiety does not always look like someone saying “let’s exploit anxiety”.

Sometimes it looks like packing the room. Other times it looks like procedural squeeze. On another day, it looks like dirty documents being pushed through a clean process. Eventually, it looks like a disabled person being wound up, worn down, provoked, exhausted, then written up as the problem.

And if Wendy Miller KC wants to be the silk of choice when companies need that sort of pressure applied, TCAP is entitled to notice.

TCAP is entitled to say it.

Calling that harassment does not make it harassment. It makes it inconvenient speech with receipts attached.

That was the Cepac move.

Miller cried about public commentary, professional criticism, her photograph, and the registration of wendymillerbarrister.com in her withdrawal letter. Then Employment Judge James picked up the label and carried it into the judgment, describing commentary about former counsel as a sustained campaign of harassment and calling the domain purchase especially egregious.

A dirty judge calling it harassment does not make it harassment.

Judge James was sitting in an Employment Tribunal, not a criminal court. He was dealing with strike-out, costs, case conduct and respondent-side outrage dressed up as procedural injury. This wasn’t a criminal harassment trial. He was not making a criminal conviction. He did not have jurisdiction to turn public criticism, available-domain registration and TCAP commentary into a criminal finding just because Wendy Miller KC did not like being written about.

And yes, available domains are available domains.

If they are available, I can register them. I can use them. Park them. Redirect them. I can even let them sit there doing absolutely nothing except existing in my account, because that is how the free market works.

Owning an available domain is not harassment.

It is ownership.

So Judge James can fuck himself with his smear.

And I will continue to operate in that free market, as is my legal entitlement.

The discomfort only starts because the name on the invoice reminds them that the archive cannot be wished away.

If a public legal operator helps companies apply pressure through public legal proceedings, TCAP can register a public-facing address, publish public-interest criticism, and keep the record where people can find it.

That is not harassment.

That is the archive answering back.

TCAP has already addressed Judge James separately. This article is not his full autopsy. The point here is narrower: Miller cried, James repeated, and the system tried to turn publication into misconduct because the publication worked.

That is not justice.

That is a dirty label slapped on a live receipt.

And TCAP is going to keep serving it.

Kotecha’s Fingerprints Do Not Need To Be Loud

This is where Jiten Kotecha belongs in the frame.

Kotecha signed as Senior Counsel – Labour and Employment (Europe). That is the senior European employment-law lane. It is not a post room. It is not admin. Nor is it a junior solicitor being dragged behind the file on a bit of string.

So when Cummins moved from lowball settlement territory into heavy legal combat, TCAP is entitled to ask what role its senior European labour-and-employment counsel played in that escalation.

Did Kotecha personally pick Wendy Miller KC? TCAP is not claiming that as a witnessed fact unless Cummins wants to explain the instruction chain publicly.

However, was he the kind of senior in-house legal figure who would be expected to know, approve, manage or at least sit close to those strategic decisions?

That is the obvious inference.

Kotecha’s relevance is not just that he appeared at the end of the chain. It is that the chain changed shape while Cummins’ senior European labour-and-employment legal function remained the obvious corporate lane. Gowling WLG first. Rayner Jones after that. Wendy Miller KC later. Different external faces, same Cummins file, same senior in-house legal gravity.

The File Did Not Escalate Itself

A company does not go from settlement offers to King’s Counsel in a disability discrimination and unfair dismissal fight by accident. Someone decides the posture. Someone accepts the cost. Another person decides that beating the claimant is better value than paying him properly. Inside the legal function, the file hardens.

And Kotecha’s own signature tells us where he sat.

Senior Counsel. Labour and Employment. Europe. That is not background noise. That is the control room.

Kotecha Was The Smooth Surface On The Dirty Machine

Rayner Jones had the cheap-settlement smell. Wendy Miller KC had the courtroom steel. Sweeney had the pen. Cummins had the money.

Kotecha had the senior European employment-law lane.

He did not need to be brash. No theatre was required from him either. Nor did he need to write the nastiest line himself or stand up in the tribunal and apply the pressure in person. That is what external lawyers are for. It is why King’s Counsel exist. That is what the company buys when it wants rough work done through respectable channels.

Kotecha could stay smooth.

He could be the point of contact. He could remain the calm legal face. Above all, he could be the senior counsel whose fingerprints do not need to look dirty because the file has been passed through enough gloves.

That is the corporate beauty of it.

The external solicitor can sound like the lowball merchant. Meanwhile, the King’s Counsel can bring the cross-examination culture. The judge can write the ugly findings. The claimant can be painted as unreasonable, obsessive, aggressive, suspicious, difficult, or whatever label keeps the story moving.

After that, the in-house legal operator gets to remain clean in the background, as though the machine ran itself.

TCAP is not buying that.

The Quiet Ones Do Not Get A Free Pass

There is a particular type of corporate lawyer who benefits from being boring.

No speeches. Little social media presence. No theatrical email or quotable abuse. No big public identity beyond the regulated listing and the professional title. That makes them harder to attack because they do not look like the attack. Instead, they look like governance. Risk management. Continuity. The sensible adult in the file.

That is exactly why they should be looked at harder.

Because boring is often where the real decisions live.

The noisy people are useful. They give you the obvious villain shape. However, the quiet corporate legal handler is the one who can help decide whether to resolve or escalate, whether to pay or fight, whether to instruct the mild solicitor or the lowball merchant, whether to bring in ordinary employment counsel or a King’s Counsel with serious-crime prosecution muscle, whether to tell the company that it has a moral problem or simply help it build a procedural answer.

Jiten Kotecha does not get immunity because Rayner Jones was louder.

Nor does Wendy Miller KC’s sharper role give him cover.

Sweeney’s judgment does not give Cummins’ legal chain a clean hiding place either.

If he sat in the legal chain, he sits in the indexed record.

Cummins would love the story to be simple.

Claim brought. Claim failed. Judgment written. Costs order. Move on.

Nice little version.

Unfortunately, TCAP has the longer version.

Disability dispute. Medical context. Procedural pressure. Initial £15,000 offer. Rejected. £30,000 return offer. Again rejected, with a fair £90,000 counter. Rejected. Procedural document exchange where I say Rayner Jones was uncooperative – a common tactic by solicitors hiding the truth, I have come to believe. External solicitor bows out. Dirty-document allegations. Anxiety pressure. Escalation. King’s Counsel. Tribunal imbalance. A disabled litigant in person facing a company with senior European labour-and-employment counsel, external lawyers, barristers, money, time and institutional patience.

That is not a company lazily swatting away nonsense.

That is a company managing exposure.

The later judgment did not erase the earlier risk calculation. It did not erase the doubled offer. Nor did it erase the choice to hold at £30,000 after my £90,000 counter. Crucially, it did not erase the fact that Cummins had the money to settle, the money to escalate, and the money to hire legal muscle, then chose the route that ended with the claimant battered by procedure and the company waving a judgment like a disinfectant wipe.

That is why Kotecha belongs in the story.

Because someone inside Cummins had to live with those choices.

And the signature at the bottom was not junior legal wallpaper.

It was Senior Counsel – Labour and Employment (Europe).

Sweeney’s Judgment Did Not Clean The File

Employment Judge Sweeney’s judgment gave Cummins something useful: formal language, findings, a public document and, more importantly, a version of the claimant that Cummins could point to when anyone asked why things had gone so badly.

But a judgment is not bleach.

That does not clean the whole file.

Nor does it erase settlement conduct, money movement, the decision to instruct certain lawyers, late evidence issues, site access disputes, fatigue, disability context, procedural imbalance, dirty-document allegations, or the fact that TCAP says the appeal route exposed serious questions about the safety of the reasoning.

Cummins may enjoy the judgment.

TCAP reads around it.

And around it, the legal machinery looks much uglier than the final PDF wants you to believe.

The £90,000 They Would Not Pay Became The Bill That Keeps Coming

That is the dirty little accounting joke under this whole file.

Cummins would not move from £30,000 after I countered at £90,000. Fine. That was the corporate choice. Hold the line, puff the chest out, call in the suits, drag witnesses into the room, burn management time, feed the lawyers, brief counsel, prepare the paperwork, and tell yourself the ledger still makes sense because the claimant has not been paid.

Beautiful work, lads.

A proper clean piece of corporate genius.

Refuse the settlement, then spend the money anyway.

Except it did not stop at the tribunal door.

Because after the judgment came TCAP. Not as a courtroom tactic. Not as part of the original fight. TCAP came later, built from the wreckage Cummins helped leave behind, and it has probably cost them more than £90,000 in the slow, ugly way reputational damage actually works.

Not one tidy invoice. That would be too merciful.

This is the other kind of bill.

The one that arrives in meetings. Appears in search results. The one that makes stakeholders ask awkward questions. That needs monitoring, explaining, containing, checking, discussing, forwarding, escalating and pretending not to notice. The one that crawls into legal inboxes, PR nerves, boardroom summaries and whatever dull little risk register Cummins keeps for things it hoped would shut up and die.

It will not.

They refused to pay the man properly.

Now they can continue to pay to mop up the stain.

And let’s be clear: the blood here is not cinema blood. It is ledger blood. Invoice blood. Paper-cut blood. The kind corporations understand because it leaks through budgets, time sheets, legal spend, reputational drag and the dead-eyed internal question nobody wants to ask out loud: how much cheaper would it have been to stop being cunts earlier?

Cummins paid to bring a knife to a fist fight.

TCAP was not even in the ring.

It was in the kitchen out back, sharpening the audit trail.

So keep paying.

Keep mopping.

The floor is not clean yet.

Jiten Kotecha Gets The Article He Avoided

So here it is.

Jiten Kotecha, Cummins’ Senior Counsel – Labour and Employment (Europe), now gets the article he avoided by being less colourful than the people around him.

TCAP is not saying Kotecha personally invented every tactical ugliness. The point is that he occupied the senior legal position while TCAP says fabricated documents, dirty file tactics, courtroom pressure and disability-blind litigation force became part of the Cummins case.

Rayner Jones could be rude. Kotecha did not need to be.

Wendy Miller KC could perform. Cummins paid for someone else to do that.

Sweeney could write the judgment. The legal machine Kotecha sat inside benefited from it.

That is the bit corporate lawyers never like. They prefer the fiction that they are simply managing risk. TCAP prefers the more honest version: managing risk sometimes means helping a rich company squeeze a disabled claimant until the process itself becomes the punishment.

If that is unfair, Kotecha can always explain the softer version.

He knows where the contact page is.

The Quiet Hand Is Still A Hand

Cummins has spent years trying to turn this into a tidy story. Bad claimant. Failed claim. Costs. Judgment. End of matter.

Unfortunately for Cummins, TCAP does not close files just because a company found a friendly official ending.

The file remains open.

Gowling WLG still sits in it. Rayner Jones still sits in it too. So do the £15,000, the £30,000, the £90,000 counter, the fabricated-document admissions and allegations, the packed courtroom, Rayner Jones’ cheap-settlement worldview, Wendy Miller KC’s deployment, the Newcastle court stink and Sweeney’s judgment.

And now Jiten Kotecha’s senior European legal role sits where it should have been sitting all along: in the searchable record.

Because the quiet hand is still a hand.

TCAP indexes the machinery.

Not just the noise.

Lee Thompson – Founder, The Cummins Accountability Project

Sources

Scroll to Top