Jump to content

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2865 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Apparently I am in a grey area. I called the eat support, they said it's a dilemma only for me, the ELAAS does not support ARO (appeal from the registrar), the lawyer has said they dont mind if two people do it. So either I pay for someone to do it all, or pay for them to do part of it. I just don't know.


Have you tried FRU (Free representation unit), they could be of some assistance in your representation

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi billybob,


Nice to see your still around and helping others after your ordeal and disappointing outcome.


Have not been on for a while as have been busy preparing resubmission of EAT 1 has our first one has been rejected on sift, interestingly it took a while and rang EAT advisor who told us it had been to 4 judges but had to go to 5th before decision, though result only came through with one judges name, which I am informed is highly unusual.


Have now rebsubmitted application on grounds of law, pervisity and bias along with application for ET panels notes and application for submission of new evidence which conforms to ladd v marshall and is 100% proof that the respondents commited perjury and falsified the allegation against the claimant.


They dismissed the claimant on gross misconduct claiming allegations were made against him. They based their evidence of this on an illegible email conversation, done after the event and which was unreadable to the tribunal. I transcribed this email as it did not in fact support such claims and was thanked at the ET for doing so. There explanation for the date being after they had decided terms of reference was that the allegation was made verbally by the person and the ET ignored my legal defense in which I also submitted recent case law and have substitued their own decision for the respondents, therby ignoring section ERA 98, and the burchell test plus various other case laws. The judgement is both perverse and for a number of reasons leads to the impression of bias.


I have since contacted the said allegor who was shocked and surprised to learn of their involvement, they have provided a statement of this effect and also given further details of the facts the claimant would not be privy to in his role. Obviously this was not available at the time as the respondents refused to give the claimant any opportunity to defend the allegations and ignored his disability, stating the email was his statement even though it dated after the terms of reference were made and was illegible to the ET. When correctly transcribed it does not support such claims and there is no evidence for the terms of refence used, which were predetermined in order to dismiss the claimant. Now waiting for response to see if we have to request oral hearing.


I am determined to obtain justice for my friend and am not going to allow this major company to get away with their actions.

Edited by rightsforme
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...