CASE 4 MRS TAYLOR

PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE 

Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which came into force on 2 July 1999, governs on whistle-blowing. This Act has been incorporated in the ERA 1998, s.43A-L and 103A.

It increases the protection of an employee who 'in good faith' disclose information in the public interest. The definition of "good faith" means employee is not motivated by personal considerations. Such disclosure must not made for gain and maker should be reasonably believe it is true.

1. The qualifying conditions

• a. qualifying disclosure
• b. protected through appropriate channel
• c. detriment was sufficiently suffered.

#Ms Taylor make the risk known and resultantly dismissed, the burden of proof will be on her to demonstrate that she has made a protected disclosure and suffered loss as result.

In NHS Manchester v Fecitt,

it was held that the employer would not liable for any action of other employees. For example, no law preventing other from victimising whistle blower. The employer could only be liable if whistle blowing had materially influenced the way that the employer treated them.

1. Qualification of Disclose

     a. believe that criminal offence is likely to committed Babalu v Waltham

     b. fail or likely to fail the legal obligation 

     c. miscarriage of justice

     d. Health and Safety is likely to be endangered

     e. Environment is likely to be endangered

     f. Such information is likely to be concealed

The worker can 'blow the whistle' on wrongdoing depends on whether they feel they can tell their employer. The worker should check their employment or ask HR about their whistle blowing procedure. 

Employer can also tell the prescribed person or body if they think that 

     a. employer will cover it up

     b. would treat them unfairly if they complain 

     c. told them but have not sorted out

Mrs Taylor should consider whether she can tell the employer, ie senior manager. If she feels that by doing so, she will be treated unfairly or employer will try to cover it up, then she would be entitled to tell the prescribed body. In fact, she has told her manager about the HS issues yet it had not been sorted out. Therefore, in this case, she would be entitled to tell PP.

Employee should ensure that it will not be an criminal act, such as breach of the official secrets act. Bolton v Evan. 

2. Appropriate Channel

There are 6 appropriate channel

a. in good faith to his employer

b. Legal advise (solicitor)

c. If employer was appointed by a minister, disclose with good faith to Minister

d. Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Person) Order 1999

e. Substantially true by not making personal gain, such disclosure was reasonably made:

     i. believe subject to detriment

     ii. disclose will be concealed/ destroy

     iii. already made to employer

     * Reasonableness subject to:

          i. identify the person to whom made

          ii. seriousness

          iii. future

          iv. duty of confidentiality

          v. previous disclosure

          vi. procedure

f. Only protected if

     i. good faith

     ii. reasonable believe to be true

     iii. no personal gain

     iv. serious

     v. Reasonable to disclose

3. Detriment suffered

Employee has the right to not be unfairly dismissed or make redundant.

Note that: 

a. 103A ERA 1996 stated that any dismissal will automatically be unfair

b. No ceiling for compensation

c. Any agreement precluding PD is automatically void.

d. Detriment includes even after the employment

Read More

CASE 3- MR JENKINS

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP

IN ORDER TO CLAIM NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE

Facts:

• Use own van, although free company car wash
• Own insurance, ancillary expenses
• No uniform
• Limited discretion on working day
• Able to have substitute
• No minimum holiday but able to give 1 week notice
• Delivery to Jenkins house
• No control over parcel
• Supervision from Mr. Shipway + manual settings
• Own tax, insurance, revenue and custom
• Paid according to the number and distance of dispatch
• No guarantee on work, invoice
• self-employed

Advice:

In James v Redcats

They are sharing similar facts. Therefore, it is reasonable that the decision should reach to the same as well.

1. Status

Original tribunal was found that she was self-employed and not a worker. The court placed significance on the fact that there was no mutuality of obligation.

Yet EAT found in her favour and provided guidance:

• "dominant purpose' of the contractual relationship
• Absence of mutuality obligation when working is not being performed is little significance in determining the status of relationship when a person is actually at work. 

The second ET, tribunal ruled that: 

" to be regard as a worker and also as a home worker within the provision of NMW Act."

A personal service: she was held to be a worker within the definition when she was actually performing work for them. It did not matter that they may not have been contract with the company when she was not delivering parcel.

# If Mrs James could be regard as providing personal service to the company and therefore allowing her to have a status as a worker, assumably that Mr Jenkins ought to be able too.

2. In Autoclenz v Belcher,

Supreme Court held: the reality of situation trumped the written contract. Although there was a substitution clause, there were expected to do their work personally.

3. Contract of Employment

Under s.230(1) ERA 1996, employee means 'an individual who entered or works under a contract of employment, whether express or implied.

5. The Control Test

Performing Rights v Mitchell,

McCardie "The final test, of there is to be final test, and certainly the test to be generally applied, lies in the nature and degree of detailed control over the person alleged to be a servant."

# The question arise of the employer control not only when the job is done but how? Control does not need to be directly. 

6. Organisational & Integration Test

Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison v MacDonald

Denning LJ: "under a contract of service, a man is employed as part of the business and his work done as integral part of the business but under contract for employment, although done for the business, is not integrated into but only accessory to it."

7. Multiple Tests

This test depends on the job and the skill of employer and employee. 

I. Control: 

Ready Mixed Concrete v MPNI, McKenna J established three condition on relationship:

     a. employee agrees to provide skill in consideration of wage

     b. an element control by the employer 

     c. nothing in the contract was inconsistent with a employment contract.

The problem of delegation/substitution has been arised:

MacFarlane v Glasgow CC, claimant was still found to be an employer even though he can be substitude by other from the list approved by the CC

II. Economic Reality Test 

Ferguson v John Dawson,

It was held that the status was not conclusive. In reality he was an employee.

III. The unfettered right

Jorza v Premier Groundwork,

It was held in EAT: where a party has an unfettered right for any reason not to personally perform the contractual obligations under the contract but can delegate someone else, he cannot be a 'worker' even though he was personally performing the contractual obligations. The position will be different if the right not to perform the obligation depend on some other event such as 'unable' to perform. 

Yorkshire v Parker,

Held: "the right or obligation to employ a substitute will not necessary mean that there is no obligation unless the substitute right was unfettered.

IV. Mutuality Obligations

Airfix v Cope,

It held that home workers were employees because work was provided regularly although employee decided on the way the job done, the time and place of performance.

|

Decision approved in Nathermere v Tarvena,

Although no obligation to provide work there were mutuality obligations in reality over a long period, which was the essence of employment relationship.

||

Contrast:

O'Kelly v Trusthouse,

She was self-employed since there is no obligation to provide work and no obligation to perform service.

Parade Park Hotel v CHMRC

Found no mutuality of obligation, where he was self-employed

Quashie v Stringfellow

Claimant was held to be an employee since she provide the work personally under the management control and there was sufficient mutuality.

Charmicheal v National Power Plc,

No obligation to provide work and no obligation to provide service.

V. Continuity

Curr v M&S

Held: "Possibility to re-employment" breaks the continuity

The problem here is what is the situation when the worker has a break during which time the employer does not give such worker any work. Does it means that theres no mutuality of obligations?

The answer was NO

Bly v Cochrane

EAT concluded that contract did not confer upon him the status of worker even when the work was performed. No mutuality between them.

#This suggesting that those person who perform work from time to time without mutuality obligation in the breaks is not a worker as defined in the legislation even he is actually working.

In James v Greenwich (2007),

It has been held that there is a need merely to show "some" duty to offer work and "some duty" to do it. However, if there is no such duty of any kind then there is no contract of employment. 

Another fairly recent case, Community Dental Centres Ltd v Sultan Darmon

ET held that: he was not an employee under 230 ERA 1996 because:

• insufficient mutuality obligation
• insufficient control over the claimant
• inconsistent with an employee relationship e.g. self insured
• contract expressly excluded the idea of employment

Howeverm ET held that he was a worker under 230 ERA 1996:

• substitution provision were implemented occasionally
• obligation to provide service personally or to personally ensure dental work
• He was more likely than not being a worker.

EAT reversed the decision, finding that claimant was worker under the s230. The trail judges found that the mutuality was inconsistence. The unfettered right to appoint a substitute under any circumstances could not be a worker.

Weighing the decisions.

Read More

CASE 2- MR BLACKBURN

Ket facts:

• Employement >5years
• Mr Baldwin- unauthorised payment for 1500 pounds.
• Paid himself out of company's wages budget for the overtime without consulting to the other directors in the company
• Take holidays without clearly indicating in advance
• Discovered, contacted Mr BB (on sick leave) by telephone and asked to attend investigatory meeting
• Mr BB was not told at that stage what the meeting was about
• Immediately suspended after meeting, told to wait for disciplinary hearing
• Sent formal letter setting out complaints, which DP will take place on the dat after Mr BB was due to return from his sick leave
• Complaint hardly given time to prepare hearing
• Decided to demote from his position on the basis of breach of trust
• Appealed, heard by Mr Grindley
• Heard the decision of appeal, wripped the document, slammed door and burst into admin office.
• "I know what exactly I can do and you know what you can do" then threw his office key across desk and went out to his car.
• Didn't return to work on the dat and following day, Sankeys assuming that he had resigned from his employment.
• Following morning, BB called and denied that he had resigned from his employment. 

Advise:

1. Very start is to establish the employment under s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996.

2. Dismissal or Resignation:

In Tanner v Keen,

Tanner used the company van after work and discovered by the employer outside the night club. Employer: "What is my fucking van doing outside; you're a tight bastard... That's it, you're finished with me."

Held: Tribunal found that the words spoken by the employer was in annoyance and not to have been a dismissal.

# It seems that the case of BB is the same, where the words spoken were in the heat of moment, which does not count as resignation. 

Gale v Gilbert- clear and unambiguous words needed

The case of "I am leaving, I want my cards"

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held: although it is undesirable that an employer should accept the resignation of a long-serving employee without giving him chance to consider his decision, where the words used by the employee were clear and unambiguous and were understood by the employers, question of what a reasonable employer consider was irrelevant. He therefore resign.

# Distinguish the case of Gale and BB, there must be the used of clear and unambiguous words to establish the resignation. Yet in BB case, the words of "I know what exactly I can do and you know what you can do" seems to be ambiguous, which does not amount to resignation.

3. Reasonable Employer

Stern v Simpson, 

Held: the words used needed to be construe in the context. Only if there is ambiguity was it necesary to consider whether a reasonable employer would understood the same as dismissal.

# If you feel like that, why the hell do you want to keep working for us? You know what you can do". The question arise whether these words are ambiguous. Arguably yes, because both of them did not clarify what can they actually do in action. Therefore, element of ambiguity. It is for the tribunal to determine the facts.

4. In the heat of moment

Martin v Yeoman,

The court held that each parties should have opportunity to recanting from spoken words in the heat of the moment. Hence there is no dismissal.

5. Evidence

Soverign House Security Service v Savage,

CA held: context of exchange between employer and employee was ambiguous, and made in the heat moment, it is the tribunal to find that employee had not resigned.

6. Special circumstances, such as stress/anxiety

Greater Glasgow Health Board v Mackay,

In this case, the court reversed the decision in ET and held that, there were no findings to justify the conclusion that appellants knew or ought to know that respondent was suffering from anxiety during the time of resignation or heat of the moment. therefore, no justification for concluding that the special circumstances exists which constitute an exception. 

# Different from Mackay, the fact that BB subsequently visit his local medical doctor, who issued a sick note of 14 days diagnosis BB was suffering stress and depression

7. Disability Discrimination

Hinsley v West Mercia Police

Held: refuse to consider any medical evidence would amount to disability discrimination.

# Failing to consider BB's disability leads to discrimination.

8. Assuming resignation

Wrongfully assuming the resignation of employee would cause UD. 

In Smith v Phil, decision suggest that it is for the ET to decide whether such was fair.

In Kwik Fit v Lineham, if the resignation is ambiguous, the employer should establish the true intention of the employee or it would otherwise be UD.

>> Applying the decision in the case law above mentioned, it is reasonable to assume that there is rather a dismissal instead of resignation. Hence, further tests to apply in order to determine whether the dismissal was fair or unfair.

I. The Bruchell Test

Under such test, it merely requires employer to have genuine believe that the employee was guilty.

II. s.98 ERA 1996 requires the Tribunal to consider whether the employer decision was :

(1.) fair- consistent and rationale

(2.) procedure fair

There are several source of guidance on procedure fairness such as :

(1.) ACAS

(2.) Employment Relationship Act 1999

(3.) Any contractual / non-contractual procedures

Failure to use procedure or using it would amount UD:

1. proper investigation

2. training

3. warning

4. illness or injury consultation

5. medical evidence

6. consultation with employees

7. provide copy of DP

8. communication with employee.

III. Disciplinary & Grievance Procedure

Tribunal would expect to to see:

1. Proper investigation

2. Fair hearing

3. Proper appeal procedure.

This means that employee will have:

a. opportunity to defence

b. accompanion

c. conduct with open minded, no pre-judge

d. appeal.

IV. Polkey Reversal/ Reduction

It must follow the statutory procedures. Otherwise, will be UD.

He can also claim for WD.

Read More

CASE 1- DISMISSAL MR BANKS

Facts

• Type 1 diabetic, alleged condition did not in any way affect his ability to work
• 100% commitment to Sankeys
• 6 mths ago, junior member staff complained that Mr. B has been too friendly, asking inappropriate questions about private life, asked for a drink after work
• Mr Grindley confronted with some very obscene pornographic images downloaded from internet
• Mr B stated no idea about the images, no recollection and probably due to the hypoglycaemic epsiode relating to type-1 deabetes
• Mr Sankeys: Gross misconduct, rejected explanation of Mr. B
• Hence, instructed that he should gather together all personal belongings and leave premises at once

Advise

1. Very first requirement, to establish the status of employment.

s. 230 (1) Employment Rights Act 1996 stated:

Employee means "individual who has entered into or works (or where the employment has ceased) under a contract of employment.

2. Contract of employment

Fact stated that there are clear written work rules, code of conduct, formal written disciplinary rules and grievance procedures incorporated into all employment contracts.

#Hence, suggesting that he does.

3. Continuity

Mr Banks has to establish his continuity. From 6th April 2012, under the Unfair Dismissal & Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 2012, employee have been employed for 2 years in order to qualify for statutory protection. 

# For Mr Banks, he was employed in December 2011, therefore he will only needs to establish the continuity of 1 year. There is nothing suggesting that Mr. Banks break his continuity (Given 100% commitment in work)

4. Qualification for Unfair Dismissal.

In order to claim for unfair dismissal, Banks needs to establish that:

(a) Contunuity

(b) Not excluded by legislation

(c) Dismissed 

(d) Bring the claim within 3 months of the termination of employment.

# Fulfilled.

5. Burden of proof

The burden of proof lies on the employer to establish that such dismissal was fair and reasonable.

6. Compensation

Recently, in February 2012, the cap for unfair dismissal compensation was up to 72300pounds, where the weekly pay to calculate the basic award rose to 430pounds per week.

7. The Burchell Test

According to Burchell, the employer only needs to show that he has genuinely believe that the employee was guilty.

8. Under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996, employer needs to show that the dismissal:

(1a) was fair

(1b) subject to subsection (2), or other substantial reason

(2) The reason falls within:

(a) capabilities or qualification

(b) conduct of employee

(c) redundancy

(d) statutory restriction

(3a) Capabilities- skill, aptitude, health or any other mental or physical quality

(b) qualification- diploma or other academic, technical or personal qualification relevant to the position

(4) Where employer has fulfilled subsection (1), the question to determine whether the dismissal is fair or unfair:

(a) depends on circumstances

(b) determine in accordance with equity and substantial merits of the case.

#Sankeys needs to prove that the dismissal was fair on the basis of employee's capabilities, qualification, conduct, redundancy, statutory restriction, or other substantial reason that is reasonable.

9. Policy on diabetes on illness?

Sinclair v Wandsworth 

Held: It was unfair dismissal (UD). Although dismissal was reasonable, neither he nor his supervisor had been supplied with the Councils policy on alcoholism despite the policy that it should be circulated to all stuff. The council failed to make clear to him what he needed to do in order to seek treatment to avoid disciplinary proceedings, leading him to believe that he was doing all necessary steps by seeking help from OHS. Yet, the compensation has been reduced by 25% due to the contributory fault.

# Applying the legal principal in Sinclair, it is crucial that the employer has make known the policy to the employe. Albeit the reason for dismissal was reasonable, yet the failure of employer to make known the policy on alcoholism will amount to UD. Therefore, if there's any company policy regarding to diabetes in Banks case, the employer is obliged to make known to Banks. 

10. Evidence

According to the recent case, Pacey v Caterpillar Logistics Service UK,

The employee was off sick with back trouble The employer covertly filmed him going to normal activities without any apparent difficulties, dismissed him.

Held: UD. The employer had failed to consider any medical evidence.

# An analogy can be drawn to the case of Banks, where although there is evidence showing the porn of the computer. Yet, Sankeys had failed to consider any medical evidence of Banks, which might lead him to behave in the matter that he did, without him actually having knowledge of it.

11. Gross Misconduct, subject to s.98(2) ERA 1996, conduct.

Relevant case law will be Neary v Dean, where it was held that:

"conduct amounting to gross misconduct justifying dismissal must so undermine the trust and confidence which inherent in the particular contract of employment, that the master should no longer retain the servant in his employment."

#The question to ask here is whether downloading pornography by using company's computer amount to gross misconduct that undermines trust and confidence that inherent in the contract of employment, which the employer should no longer require to retain the servant.

12. Downloading pornography

Dunn v IBM- it was held UD, due to the employer dismissed the employer without proper disciplinary procedure being held. Compensation reduced 50% for contributory fault.

Parr v Derwentside- Fair dismissal with disciplinary proceeding

Humphries v Barnett- In this particular case, where it stated that in the particular case of obscene will justify the summary dismissal on the ground of misconduct.

#From the case law, it shows that if the proper disciplinary procedure is used, the employer can reasonably dismiss the employee on the ground of misconduct. However, the fact that Mr. G was confronted with some very obscene pornographic images. Following the decision in Humphries, the summary dismissal may be justified.

Yet, in City of Edinburgh v Dickson,

Mr Dickson had type 1 diabetes and hypoglycaemic episodes. In 2007, he was caught watching pornography in a school. His manager didn't accept that Dickson's action could have been as a result of his disability. Dismissed.

In the decision, Court of Appeal held that employer should:

a. objective examination

b. consulting

c. obtain independent medical advise

d. fully investigate.

"a degree of scepticism was entirely justifiable, but scepticism is one thing and a refusal to seriously consider the explanation proffered was another."

# The company of Banks was made aware that Banks has diabetes, therefore, the manager ought to consider his medical evidence. Failing to do so, UD.

13. SPENT previous conduct

Airbus v Webb

12 months ago, Webb was caught that he was washing his car during working time. More than 1 year ago, he was caught watching TV with his colleague during working time. Dismissed.

Court of Appeal held in this case: Such should not automatically lead to find that dismissal was unfair. Past conduct is part of the circumstances to be taken into account, in deciding whether employee was acted reasonably.

# Employee might consider the previous conduct of Banks acted with the female employee. Yet, conduct did not receive any official warning. Therefore, it can only be used to access whether the conduct of employer was reasonable.

14. Reasonable Employer

s98(4) ERA 1996:

Not only must the employer have the fair reason to dismiss the employee, but he must also show that he was acted reasonably in actually implementing the dismissal for one of those reasons.

# Therefore, Banks is eligible for claiming Unfair Dismisal.

15. Wrongful dismissal

While UD consider the reason that employer dismiss an employee, wrongful dismissal consider the breach of contractual obligation between the employer and employee. 

Under s.86 REA 1996- The rights of employer and employee to minimum notice

The notice required to be given by employer to terminate the contract of employment of a person who has been continuously employed:

(1b) is not less that 1 week's notice for each year of continuous employment if his period of continuous employment is 2 years or more but less than 20 years.

# Employer failed to give the minimum notice to Banks, wrongful dismissal.

16. Requirement to claim for wrongful dismissal:

a. there must be a dismissal

b. breach of contract

c. no justified summary dismissal. Dietman v London Borough of Brent- continued worked for 17 months after gross misconduct, not justified summary dismissal.

17. Remedies

Jancuik v Winterite- damages available if employer failed to comply with the contractual disciplinary procedure but only for the period of time that would have passed had those procedures been complied with.

# In the case of Banks, it is suggest that damages ought to be available from the time of employer failed to apply the DP to the time that would have lapse.

Claim for both wrongful and unfair dismissal.

Read More

我是小草

大家好吗

昨天开始  我不是忙  而是变的特别忙

原因是昨天跟系友见面  讨论了我们的论文

结果发现自己原本的方向完全错误

当下的感觉是

手心发凉  背后发冷  头皮麻痹  眼神呆滞

Read More

宝贝们

亲爱的大家

睡前跟大家分享几张最近发生在我家的可爱画面

自从我家的两个小公主诞生之后

整家的大人都忙着围绕他们两个转

Read More

新年快乐

亲爱的大家

最近都还好吗

最近的我沉溺在满满的幸福海里  都有点不想上岸了

但是生活总得继续

摆脱不了的现实  我要勇敢面对

一年的最后一天不免俗还是要跟大家问个好

Read More

幸福22

亲爱的大家

不久前是我的生日周

当然  当天是自己的主角之外

还有我人生最重要的两个人  我爹和我娘

感恩他们把我带到这个世界

很美好  很幸福

自己出来念书之后

好几年下来生日都遇到上课

而且往往不是有presentation 就是特别忙

当然  今年也不例外

Read More

聪明 v 愚蠢

终于
我可以硬挤出那么一点点的时间来更新最近的事情
最近的我依然被来天眷顾着  所以过得依然很幸福

最近无论身边常发生一种现象
就是两个人互相埋怨

Read More

今天

亲爱的大家

今天是大家的星期六
却是我的颓废星期六

也不知道怎么了
一睡就不想起身

Read More

《给关注友谊的未知青年的信息》

今天我觉得有两件特别的事情想跟大家分享：

1. 最近认识了两个中国女生  在唯一一堂商业课里认识了他们俩  A 和 L
一开始相识是其中一个女生A  在商场里面碰到我之后  在不认识对方的情况下走来跟我说话
我觉得太妙了  我们彼此都不认识对方  但对话起来却好像认识的朋友一般
后来才知道我们都有一个共同的朋友  现在在法国当交换生
每次上商业课的时候我都特别主动的挤到这两个女生的中间  试着交朋友

Read More

《给正在摸索人生的青年的信息》

星期一早上 11am－1pm  普通的这个时间是上 欧盟法律（EU Law)
但是这个星期大学法律系主任找了一位讲师来给我们上 “人生课”
我觉得特别有意义  想跟大家一起分享
讲师是一位伦敦知名律师楼的事务律师

Read More

《给未知热血青年的信息》

前几天和朋友在自己的房间里聊天  从晚上聊到凌晨

我说：你都还好吗  最近怎么看到你的眼睛都是红红的

其实心里  我知道他不开心  看上去有发自内心的不愉快 

朋友问回我：

“我不明白为什么你每次就算上了一整天的课

或是开了一整天的会  你都还是精力充沛

在你身上  我看到你对血液的热诚

你是那么的开心

我虽然很爱我的大学科目

可是。。。

为什么

我就是开心不起来”

说到这里

他哭了  看得出来  那是一种释放

我当时立马踏前去给他我能给的  最温暖的拥抱

拍拍他的背  告诉他一切都没事  都会过去的

当时的我  觉得这一幕  好熟悉  因为我看到了2年前的自己

Read More

短信

大家  最近都过的好吗

有好几天都没有上这里来八卦了

最近特别忙

忙的有的时候觉得慌

时时在和时间竞赛

一个人

必须要内外兼顾

要早起晚归的去上课开会

回到家还得做复习和进行论文资料搜寻

完了还要洗澡运动

还得空出时间煮东西吃

清理房间

买粮食和卫生用品以及必需品

还得查升学资料

等等等

一个人恨不得有四肢周角  四颗眼睛

一天恨不得有四十八个小时

对于那些在求学时期还在外打工的同志们

你们太强了

我是打从心里佩服你们

我倘若也想你们一样  一边念书一边打工

我想我只会落的蜡烛两头烧的下场

最近直到最好的朋友  她的小宝贝宠物上天堂了

心里头真的不是滋味

让我也开始着急自己的宝贝女儿

在家是否过的好  小侄女儿有没有欺负她

她健不健康  家佣有没有乱给她吃东西

好伤心

但是咱们约定了  下辈子让她和pinky一起变成我们的好姐妹

还一样到美中上课  相识  成为闺蜜  一起上大学

和拥有坚定的友情！

Cha，希望你知道  姨爱你

你在另外一个世界  祝安息  祝解脱

Love

幸福 xx

Read More

爱视频

哎呀大家

好想我家那个小猴子

跟大家分享一下  他的坏蛋态度

以下的片段是她在家的书房里

偷捣蛋她爸  也就是我哥的电脑

后来妈妈来了  坏事被发现了

第一件做的事情就是装可爱！

又气又好笑

Read More