Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral
  1. GenvievePipi, Below are my additional comments. Page 1: The issue of your representative was made neutral by your acceptance to be accompanied by someone else. Page 2: No budget for Project Management is a reasonable reason. However, if after you were told there was no money and you were aware of someone else that was sponsored then you may have a case here to build upon with the evidence. That person sponsored will be viewed as your comparator. Financial Awareness Training – They conceded here and at the same time provided you opportunity to take up this training. I do not know if there is a legal issue here considering they already accepted they were wrong and willing to put things right. You know better and should be able to know more on this point. Pages 3 and 4: From Point 2. There are possible issues under this point if you are able to bring out the details more fully. This should come under career advancement. First line on page 4 the word “recollection” is a legal language to protect statement that may not be correct. The Tribunal is always aware of such statement but can not do so much about it so they would take it on the face of it. Third paragraph Page 4: I think if you have some evidence then you can use it to your advantage. They accepted genuine mistake then there should be some sort of remedy to correct that mistake. Point g on Page 6: You may have to demonstrate that your absence was official (either sick leave or pregnancy related) and also evidence that others were informed why you were ignored. This could be a ground if properly developed. Point 3: Was any (or all) of your comparators job amended to demonstrate unfavourable treatment against you? If the answer is yes you may have to develop this ground more. Page 9: Their response under “Dropped from meetings” would be difficult to challenge. They are stating that the client made that decision. They also bringing in a very bad aspect by their statement that you were in the pub whilst responding to the client. Perhaps if you have good feedback from the clients it could help to an extent. I think you have to develop your grounds on points 4 (a, c, e and f). I am not sure there is any life issue on points 4 (b and d).
  2. We urgently need your help. We have limited time left to advance an Unlawful Eviction case to the ECHR. We need sample of completed application(s) made to the ECHR before in the past to give us an edge. With the new single judge system to review cases on the papers, it is only good that we have our work done as effectively as possible. Alternatively we are willing to pay for this task if the money is reasonable from someone with a heart of justice who has very good experience and made several applications to the ECHR before.
  3. I have had a quick read of their responses but would need some help from you to direct my effort into those areas you believe were compelling as you know your case better. Your annotated comment on the margin of sub paragraph f on page 10 could be a ground on direct discrimination as you were excluded from a team activity. Exclusion is an important area if you can find more evidence to demonstrate racial discrimination. However, they provided a very strong rebuttal in the sense that you were not a member of the “pitch team”. Their response to yours on the face of it on this point could have a neutral effect from an informed observer. Without any further evidence it could be difficult for the Tribunal to draw an adverse decision against them on this point.
  4. I cannot see any response from your employer but your own letter to the HR. Is it your response you wanted advice on?
  5. I do not like any system that turns a blind eye on any civil case of injustice, especially when the victim is going through health issues, no matter the years that have gone past. Your case maybe special and maybe worth considering under a test case from a very smart Counsel with heart of justice, or perhaps reopening through the CPR52.17 procedure to the Court of Appeal. You can in parallel try and make your way to the media to tell your story and the effect could lead to some sort of reparative justice or other comforting measures to compensate for the injustice.
  6. ms_smith The order was made by the Tribunal Chairman during the PHR for the Respondent to open up the document they disclosed on their own free will. This was after several case laws (e.g. Home Office v Tariq [2011] UKSC 35) to demonstrate Equality of Arms principle were submitted as evidence. One case law was that of paragraph 39 in the judgment of Tugendhat J in Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor v Times Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 2705 (QB): Most of the names of the comparators were clearly written in the ET1 form where details on the discriminating treatments were spelt out in full.
  7. Yes I agree with you on that front. But I do not see why disclosure of names in their own disclosed documents to understand the 8 archival files is asking too much.
  8. ms_smith, Your comments were very reassuring and balanced. With reference to the comments of recording: The EJ stated that the Tribunal was not subjected to the Court and CPR Rules except I believe he mentioned rule 60. He said the Tribunal has its own rule totally different from what is followed by the Court. In the Court you can request for Transcript so that any conduct/misdemeanour of a Judge can easily be identified and where necessary escalated to the appropriate channel for redress. At the PHR the Employer was ordered to open up documents. When this order was not complied with the Claimant wrote the Tribunal that the employer refused to comply and requested for another CMD/PHR. The Employer Lawyer firmly objected that it would be disproportionate. The Tribunal then responded that during the substantive hearing the issue should be raised. The Tribunal then overruled the order at the PHR. When the Claimant found out all the evidence he required to prove his case was being refused or over rule he made that comments that the Tribunal were biased. The case: Racial Discrimination as one head and Unfair Dismissal as the other head. RR65 was completed requesting information such as training, promotion and pay data for comparators. The Employer refused to provide answers to these questions and other crucial information to help the Claimant formulate his case more effectively. They only responded to questions that appeared to help their case. When the Claimant wrote the tribunal for the Employer to respond to those crucial information they refused to respond to, the Employer responded back to the Tribunal that they were fully aware for providing evasive answers. In the information they disclosed they refused to disclose names of Comparators but instead provided several codes for each question relating to Comparators so that you cannot identify any comparator or find any trend. For instance Comparator named as Code 11 does not uniquely tie that code to a comparator but only to that question. Code 11 in another question is another Comparator. So you can not form any unique information from Comparator Code 11.
  9. It is most frustrating when people direct people to lawyers without a caveat. Lawyers are not free and free lawyers are not easy to get to take up a case of up to 25 days hearing. Most free lawyers are interested in cases lasting no more than 3 days. If you are willing to offer your service that would be a great help. If not it would be good to receive your kind contribution through my private message or through this open forum. This is a case that the Judge stated during the first day of the hearing that nobody was permitted to record the hearing in any electronic media and that it was a criminal offence if the hearing was recorded. He said people are free to make written notes if they so wish. What is the judge afraid of? At the Courts every comments is recorded and people can request for transcript. Now only what the Judge has written count and even if the Claimant is the best orator nobody can tell. This is just simply unfair! The Employment Judge was told to his face in the open Tribunal, after blatant persecution and oppression against the Claimant, that the EJ was biased by the Claimant. The Claimant then requested from the Judge permission to take the adverse decision to the EAT. The Judge told him he should make the application himself. Once again those reasons provided by the Judge came after the Claimant told him that the Tribunal was biased. One thing I know of many English Judges, as I go to Court and Tribunal more frequently, is their command of using language to obfuscate the truth. Not surprising that the Judge had written comments that on the face of it looks like the Claimant was not making any sense. But when justice is not seen to be fair it created animosity within the civil society which many failed to understand. My reading of those comments indicate to me that the Judge came with a predetermined mind. I cannot understand how a Judge can arrive at a “firm evidence” from one side alone (Respondents 1 and 2) to the case when the judge is also stating that he was not making a final finding? This is the first case I have seen where a Judge refused names of comparators to be known because the Counsel said that to the Tribunal revealing the names would lead to the Claimant knowing pay data and personal matter in the disclosed bundle. It seemed that the Judge has not written the complete truth. Pay data, promotional history and training data including qualifications of the comparators were the requests made by the Claimant which were refused by the Judge as they were not initially disclosed by the Respondents. I think it was just a red herring by the judge as he knows most judges dont have the luxury of time to read 8 archival files!
  10. ms_smith, The interlocutory decisions were made during the substantive hearing. These were some of the comments. Could forumers reveiw and provide their understanding whether the Tribunal is biased or not biased.
  11. So how can I attach the reason so that after reading I can delete it. I really need draft of how to present it to the Tribunal Panel prefereable sent to my inbox or private message so that the content may not be seen by the Tribunal Panel or Employer. Also I need draft on the point of law to make the EAT immediately.
  12. A Solicitor gave a bill of £2,500. Where would that money come from? They appeared overwhelmed with the volume of the 8 archival files full of irrelevant information provided by the Employer. Interesting the Counsel for the Employer was using that as a weapon of the Claimant asking for it which was 100% wrong. Please what are the steps to getting help here?
  13. Okay. I wait upon whomever is interested to provide me ideas on point of law grounds because this Tribunal demonstrated they cannot be trusted. They changed virtually most of the discusion to favour the Employer. This is really frustrating but very good that one can see their mindset before the ultimate decision is reached. Help on how to draft a letter for a reconstituted ET will be appreciated. Help also to draft appeal to the EAT will be very much apprecaited as well.
  14. There is an Order. They gave some seven pages of reasons for their Grounds of Adjudications. Reading through those reasons one is convinced beyond peradventure that the Tribunal Panel is consciously or unconsciously biased. They appeared to be making arguments for the Employer and misdirected argument raised by the Claimant. I can provide the whole documents here but would like the ability to be able to delete after you have read it. Is this possible?
  15. Rule 14(2) is a good start, Thank you. The problem is that once they are biaised then the Claimant can never get their discretion anymore which could be itself unfair, isnt it? So is it possible for the Claimant to request a new Tribunal Panel be reconstituted?
  • Create New...