In my case:
E.g. 2 claims failed due to Judges delaying Orders and refusing to address my applications, that is for a time extension and specific document disclosures, where Respondent in 5 months waiting had wiped out e-mail evidence without consequences, and time extension application first raised on 22 Feb 2017, but never addressed, despite insisting on every PH.
E.g. Judgment delayed 12 months with evidence made to be forgotten, finding of fact swayed for the benefit of the Respondent and Respondent’s witness given another chance to refresh her testimony 11 months from the hearing but not the Claimant.
E.g. Tribunal no responsiveness prior to the original Hearing with multiple matters on dispute between the parties, including Bundle not finalised, Respondent failure to disclose documents, Witness Statements not ready, new claim leave to amend, and many more, leaving disabled unrepresented Claimant in turmoil, with several attempts for postponement (claim completely in disarray at this stage sabotaged by the army of lawyers on Respondent’s side to draw negative inferences towards unrepresented Claimant, this has been consistent from the outset throughout and even Claimant was harassed in weeks leading to the hearing 3-5 Sep’18 and at the hearing on her invisible disability and even index for the Bundle not printed by the Respondent anything just to cause wind up and emotional ambush to the Claimant) ignored completely by the Tribunal and even summarised in a Judgment dismissing claim, based on no postponement sought!
The Judgment consists of significant inconsistencies with the evidence provided at the hearing, constitute miscarriage of justice:
- Ms Greenhalgh admitted that she and the alleged perpetrator Ashley Jackson, decided between themselves not to do anything about Appellant’s sexual harassment complaint for three days, based on the assumption that she couldn’t ‘know’ or ‘use’ particular English wording used in her text message (English female complaining of sexual harassment would not have been subjected to that scrutiny), and not what the Respondent claimed in their ET3, additionally it was Mr Jackson’s decision that the issues raised by the Appellant were “nonsensical” and couldn’t be a sexual harassment, despite not having any personal harassment training. Ms Greenhalgh despite evidence to the contrary says she wasn’t Mr Jackson’s Line Manager, when he says that she was! Ms Greenhalgh continued then to correct Appellant, who was asking her cross-examination questions, on her English pronunciation while on stand and despite Respondent denying this in ET3 she denied Appellant from speaking Polish with her colleagues who was leaving in 3 days, and just after Brexit referendum, said that this is because Respondent was an “English speaking office”, when in fact the owner’s and many other employees spoke Urdu between themselves. It was Not in their Policy to speak English but many other trivial behaviours were included in the Policy. Both Ms Greenhalgh, Mr Jackson and also Mr Rathore, who were aware of sexual harassment claim, did not follow their own Policy on Personal Harassment for 3 days since Appellant raised sexual harassment concerns, where she should be at least be assigned a ‘confidential helper’ but wasn’t. Appellant also asked relentlessly prior to making complaint to sit elsewhere if only temporary (to deal with the matters) but was ignored, also on her stress complaints and ill health.
- The grievance should have been considered as an act of discrimination, to which evidence was given by the Claimant and Ms Halliwell.
- It is the Respondent’s expert witness who said that Appellant’s laptop was ‘wiped out’ clear when brought to him by the alleged perpetrator Mr Jackson or Mr Rathore with the instruction, which resulted in e-mail evidence being ‘wiped out’ which perverts course of justice, as at the time both persons were aware of sexual harassment by e-mails and Claimant remained in employ. The burden should have shifted to the Respondent, as Appellant did Everything she could to retain this evidence. It wasn’t investigated during Grievance, when it was still available. The Respondent attempted also to ‘hide’ evidence relating to Russian woman comment made by Mr Jackson, to which he admits he did in his evidence and Grievance interview notes, contrary to the Judgment statement!
- Ashley Jackson admitted to making a (sexist) comment about Russian models [transcript 1530-1546], missed in the Judgment and Judge’s notes of the hearing! AJ potentially committed perjury misleading Tribunal on 5 counts he was confronted about (Provided untrue statement regarding Russian woman comment, then regarding the length of his Managerial position, then invoice vs quote factual description, then regarding why he didn’t speak to the Claimant about sexual harassment – he decided this wasn’t sexual harassment, was ‘nonsensical’ and even asked his mum, misleading Tribunal originally that the text apparently didn’t come from Claimant, but having clear conversation history with her, then spent lunch break under oath with his Lawyer despite Judges clear direction not to [transcript 1740]
- Similarly Respondent misled Tribunal in their responses: about Claimant being denied to speak Polish, no Policy regarding speaking English present and defence presented ‘last minute’ regarding the same treatment for Urdu speaking employees was not Respondent’s response throughout the proceedings and irrelevant to the negative Brexit rhetoric present at the time towards EU Citizens only (MD, owner and many employees spoke Urdu in the office) and Claimant being questioned on her immigration status by Manager and plans, visas, passports on the first day after the referendum in an open plan office and intimidating Brexit talks taking place in general (Claimant being sole EU Citizen in the office). Those were actually confirmed in the witness statements and in the evidence to contradict Respondent’s original response of such taking place at all, but missed in Judgment.
- Disability discrimination questioning and legal dilemmas put on Claimant in the beginning of the Hearing aimed to form negative inferences (appearance of Judge’s bias raised twice in a Hearing itself by the Claimant)about the Claimant’s perception used then to justify sexual harassment experience by the Claimant, hence constituting disability and sex discrimination of the Claimant by the Tribunal. No other adequate reasoning was provided by the Tribunal despite Claimant’s several inquiries for clarification what is meant by apparent “Claimant’s perception” and other circumstances of the case. No opportunity was given to respond to those defamatory characteristic, which remain offensive and intimidating making up as if it was Claimant who was the ‘sexualised’ one and hence it was all in her head. Many evidence of sexist office talks and banter were provided but ignored. Meeting room doors were not allowed closed, even if you were in it. Claimant also was the only female for the majority of time with Respondent. The work environment was sexualised, man dominated and especially on ‘casual Fridays’ lad’s banter prevailed.
- Judge’s summary point [transcript 3186-3196] on Ashely Jackson sexually harassing Claimant made in a Hearing, missed in the Judgment. Also Judge’s acknowledgment of the Respondent having insufficient Personal Harassment Policy – reporting sexual harassment without Manager present (written by Peninsula)- and not following the Policy in place, missed in the Judgment.
- Agreeing legal matters with Respondent’s lawyer, not on papers, not in the Judgment with Claimant largely ‘kept in the dark’, unaware of those talks taking place and discovered in transcript. Claimant largely unaware what was taking place e.g. regarding victimisation apparently not being addressed (ET letter 20.12.18), when it was actually addressed and both witnesses cross-examined on it, Claimant’s time extension application included in Panel’s 3h reading time not addressed by the Judge but failed claim on basis of no application apparently made, disputing earlier Judgment when both parties agreed and were ready to finalise the matters brought up by the Judge’s initiative and not the Respondent’s, ending hearings earlier by the hour on first day but Judge’s notes indicate 4pm instead of 3pm finish, finishing also earlier on the 3rd day when the Judgment was expected and parties finalised closing submissions, sending unstamped undated latter to the Claimant received on 20 Dec 2018 with postage to be paid apparently needing further clarification on matters addressed already in a hearing but forgotten and both parties agreeing no further hearing was necessary, as there was nothing to add, refreshing cross-examination of the Respondent’s witness MH, but not of the Claimant on the 11 Jul 2019, implying witness –MH -was not aware of Claimant’s disability when the witness statement clearly indicate that she was, as she was handling Claimant’s grievance and representing Respondent along Counsel.
- Claimant’s two applications made in February 2017, of time extension application and specific documents disclosure, delayed by Employment Tribunal who refused to decide on them, led to at least 2 claims failed – race discrimination Allegation 1 and sexual harassment by e-mails, which was of no fault by the Claimant. Claimant’s approached Tribunal in every Preliminary Hearing as time was of an essence, but was denied as it was “too early to address” in Employment Tribunal responses, causing failed claims and a detriment.
- Claimant approached Tribunal what she is to do regarding ‘moving on’ from this employer, which without the Judgment was a Catch-22 situation and due to Judgment delayed 11 months potentially harming Claimant legally in her constructive dismissal claim. Despite Claimant asking for recommendations in ET1 nothing was provided.
- For victimisation claim won by the Claimant in Jul 2019 remedy was never provided, despite appeal process finalised, as ongoing Punishment of the Claimant, despite in parallel case of constructive dismissal when its Claimant insisted on postponement of hearing due to pending appeal, Tribunal refused it was a valid reason, proving double standards to its considerations. In regards to the Respondent’s appeal – the court’s Registrar ‘helped’ the Respondent to put the cross-appeal for consideration despite being refused in Feb 2020, overall in 4 attempts and to turmoil Claimant! It was for my complain and countless e-mails in a nerve wracking process to clarify final outcome of appeal eventually being finalised. Remaining still without remedy.
- ET Judge correcting Respondent Senior Legal Representative regarding Ashley Jackson unwanted sexual conduct and admitting of noticing a sexual harassment there :”I thought that he accepted to show someone his scars this means that you (to Claimant) witnessed it”, “Well the Claimant found the business with the legs to be unwanted conduct but ‘did he accept’ next to Claimant being frisky what the context for?”, “the conduct he engaged in, unwanted conduct could potentially meet the end of the weld”[3189-3194]. He also acknowledged eating grapes hanging vine to his mouth, ‘flashing off’ his bare biceps and stretching often on casual Friday in short sleeve T-Shirt, often saying ‘sweet’ and ‘I am hot’. Judge misunderstood evidence in relation of tan peeling off-this wasn’t ‘discussed’, but this was performed by Ashley Jackson in the office sitting next to Claimant, Ashley Jackson on one occasion thanked Muslim colleague for making a conversation with Claimant in her presence-missed I suppose in pleadings, as no proof and lack of legal knowledge and what’s the point after all and depression suffered as a result, Claimant was being touched and made sexist gestures towards her like grabbing belt of trousers and shaking on one occasion saying ‘I will show you’ in reference to question on IT system or something like that by Muslim colleague . Doors were not allowed closed to adjacent meeting rooms, and Respondent did not follow its ‘flawed’ (written by Peninsula) Personal Harassment Policy. Banter widespread. Lone female in open plan office and in meetings.
- Judge made favourable ‘deals’ with Laura Halsall (Respondent’s Senior Legal Representative, Oxford graduate, Catholic School graduate, cousin of Olympic Gold Medalist swimmer, possibly in patronage by some Judges claiming to be Barrister, or aiming to be a Barrister in career, very preferential treatment in Claimant perception) regarding grievance process not being an act of discrimination, verbally and not in writing, when evidence showed lack of impartiality in grievance investigation and missing to investigate sexual harassment e-mails available on that stage but later ‘wiped out’ clear by the Respondent who admitted to it:
“If it is a protected act in my understanding?-Laura Halsall
If it is your understanding it is what it is-Judge
I appreciate it Sir, I appreciate it-Laura Halsall”
- The same legal Representative made concession to accept vicarious liability for Sue Dando, but the Judge on its own initiative put legal dilemma to the Claimant throughout the hearing to dispute earlier Judgment in separate proceedings by separate Judge. It was not Respondent’s objection, but it was agreed by both parties and the separate Tribunal.
- This Representative also against clear instruction for Ashley Jackson “to spend lunch break alone “ under oath while giving evidence, was talking to the witness under oath. He then gave more ‘I don’t recall’ responses:
“Mr Jackson you are giving evidence now so please stay away from your party and have lunch by yourself, then come back here at 2 o’clock.”
- Claimant applied on 06 Jul 2017 for the ‘Dando’ harassment e-mail to be added to the case, with no response from Tribunal, new case needed to be launched, only to be later joined to original case by the Tribunal. Judge disregarded earlier 2 PH and Judgment, when both parties agreed and were ready to move on with the claim. It is now pending to this day.
- Ashley Jackson admitted to making untrue statement on stand and it is noted in the Judges Notes on page 39. He also confirmed not having any personal harassment training as a Manager on pg.43. But disregarding sexual harassment complaint , as nonsensical.
- Judge also misdirected himself about tan peeling off, it wasn’t discussed but performed by Ashley Jackson at his desk sitting next to the Claimant.
- All in all conduct disregarded by Tribunal when raised. The Judge was misled by the Respondent and the Judgment constitutes miscarriage of justice, given 12 months’ time lapse from the hearing and many errors (at least 6 identified by Appellate Court without transcript evidence). Judges notes consist of many evidential gaps. Evidence contained there is not correct.
- Claimant agrees she didn’t have the strongest case, however the evidence provided to the Tribunal has been misguided in the judgment due to 12 months’ time lapse and insufficient notes. Many evidence provided to support Claimant’s case was simply forgotten to the Respondent’s benefit. This was not fair trial and a miscarriage of justice.