Help, I believe the Judge is related to the Barristers' head of chambers!

[amarjit]

During a recent Tribunal, where the Claimant lost despite proving that the Respondents submitted forged documents, I have since found out that the Judge may be related to the Barristers' Head of Chambers, this answers the question why the Claimant lost the case depite clear, unchallenged evidence of forgery etc.

 

The Claimant haswrote to ask the Tribunal in question under the FOI Act whether they are related though received a very week response to say that they don't hold the evidence. Moreover, that the Judge is exempt from this Act as they are not a public authority as such.

 

Please could anyone help me obtain this information as it would assist in my assumption that the Judge may have been biased?

 

Thank you

[postggj]

WELL I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THAT IS DATA AVALIABLE UNDER THE foi BEING THE LAW SOCIETY IS A GOVERMENT QUANGO AND A PUBLIC BODY BUT WE HAVE NOW DATA PROTECTIONS ISSUES ALSO

 

I CANT CONFIRM THAT AS UNSURE BUT A REQUEST TO THE SOLICITORS REG AUTHORITY MIGHT BE THE ANSWER

[papasmurf1cx]

Even if there is a connection, just what does that prove? I am not doubting your assumptions here only trying to focus your mind on what good that information would do to your case? Forged documents are not uncommon in Employment Tribunal cases, that does not mean that the case was not found in your favour because they had forged documents, only that they had no relevance to the actual process of the dispute at hand.

 

Without going into the evidence, I can say that this happened to us too, and despite the forgeries being a 'detriment' and an act of victimisation, they were a side issue to the main thrust of the dispute. Even if proved in our favour it may not have made a difference to our case. Perhaps that is the case with you too.

 

Barristers are trained to look at the evidence and it is entirely possible for them to know each other and even stand up and argue their case against people they know. Our barrister, it turned out, had been trained by his opponent. Did that go well with us.. No. Do we suspect treachery... No. We did suspect that ours was perhaps a bit in awe of his former master, but at the end of the day our settlement was based on the facts and those were not in dispute, much.

 

amarjit.... I know this is hard to take but if you tried and went all the way to Tribunal... you did your best. Unless you are going to start suing the legal profession (and good luck with that if you are) trying to find reasons for not winning are pointless as you will just cut yourself up all over again. If you truly have evidence of forgery the best place to go is the Police and allege forgery, perverting the course of justice and any other criminal offence that you can prove. The police are normally quite reluctant to get involved in these types of cases.. but you never know.

[amarjit]

So if I suggest that there maybe an issue of bias would it not be prudent of me to pursue this? Also the forged documents related to pertinent issues, the judge stopped me questioning the witness about this, telling me to 'move on'. Then in the judgement, said that I did not explain or provide any evidence to substantiate my claims.

[rebel11]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1861/contents/made

[amarjit]

Thank you for this though I would appreciate if you could be more specific in your response?

[rebel11]

Employment Tribunals have Chairman, they don't have Judges. You need to find out what Rules apply, see if those rules were applied correctly. Don't forget you can Appeal but there is a Time Limit, you need to find the correct critera to Appeal.