Who will deal with my Human Rights breaches?
EAT President’s Response on Human Rights breaches by the ET Manchester (Feb 2020): Ground 11- “This appears to be a freestanding Human Rights complaint. It does not disclose any arguable error of law on the part of the Tribunal (which would not, in any event, have had jurisdiction to consider such a claim).”
EAT Judgment 10 Sep 2020: “Ground 11 seeks to raise points by reference to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Human Rights Convention, but it is not open to the Appellant to seek to pursue a freestanding claim under the Human Rights Act as part of this appeal, and I do not think Ground 11 adds anything of substance to the other grounds that I have considered.”
“6.The Claimant then embarks on a number of topics which in my view are irrelevant. These include Article 13 of the ECHR (which is, incidentally, not part of English law: see schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act, which omits it); a reference to the “Upper Tribunal”; the Brexit withdrawal agreement; a book entitled Brexitland; and a lecture given by Lord Neuberger. Nor do I understand what the relevance is of a supposed failure by Parliament to amend a law to prohibit racism or xenophobia directed against EU citizens following Brexit. Discrimination in employment on the grounds of race or of nationality is already prohibited.”Court of Appeal, Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Bean, 22 Mar 2021
Government portal ‘Court and Tribunal finder’ do not include Human Rights in search ‘the area of law I’m interested in’??? EAT past judgments however show that the EAT addresses Human Rights-below.
Statutory framework: Affecting wider group of EU Citizens and disabled Claimants Badgering of a disabled witness, unrepresented Claimant Inequality of Arms HMCTS Statistics – 2% to 3% race discrimination success rate in a decade! There were 3599 race discrimination cases – Total number of receipts by jurisdiction, 1 April 2018 – 31st March2019. Further 3967Continue reading “In the Supreme Court”
Notice of Appeal from Decision of Employment Tribunal 1. The appellant is (name and address of appellant). KATARZYNA PACZKOWSKA 2. Any communication relating to this appeal may be sent to the appellant at (appellant’s address for service, including telephone number if any). 3. The appellant appeals from (here give particulars of the judgment, decision orContinue reading “Appeal 2405428/2016 Judgment”
Follow My Blog
Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.