· Written by

Is the tribunal system corrupt?

No.

Between us we’ve got several decades of experience in employment tribunals. We’ve seen nothing to suggest there is any type of corruption or systematic wrongdoing going on.

But many people who go through the system are left deeply unhappy and with the sense that it has failed them. Some conclude that it is corrupt. It seemed worth addressing this explicitly — and explaining what we mean when we say the tribunal isn’t corrupt.

At the most basic level, you can’t bribe an employment judge. Admittedly we’ve never heard of anyone trying. Yet we’re absolutely sure anyone who did would be immediately reported to the police by the outraged judge.

Similarly, with extremely rare exceptions, judges don’t sit on cases where they have a personal interest or might reasonably be thought to have a personal interest. If they do, there will be grounds for appeal. There are no smoke-filled back-rooms where favours are exchanged or arms twisted.

We also don’t think that there’s any general prejudice against claimants (or for that matter respondents).

Employment Judges are doing what they claim to be doing: trying to decide each case fairly. More than that, the vast majority are highly-competent, dedicated professionals who work hard at a difficult and stressful job.

This doesn’t mean that the system is perfect, or anything like it. It often fails and often causes genuine injustice.

The tribunal has to apply the the law and procedure it is given. The law is imperfect — sometimes simply unfair — so applying it does lead to injustice.

And judges aren’t perfect. They are flawed people like the rest of us. Which means they can lose their temper when they shouldn’t; miss the point or otherwise fall short of the ideal. When this happens, it can lead to unfair results.

And – like everyone else on the planet – judges have their own assumptions and inherent preferences. Some do have an instinctive preference for the authority figure in the case. (Lots of people do; read about the Milgram experiment, and wonder if you’d have passed the test.) Others have an anti-authoritarian streak. Some get reputations; employment lawyers often describe judges as ‘pro-claimant’ or ‘pro-respondent.’ Broadly speaking, those reputations are deserved. But this doesn’t mean that the judges aren’t doing their best to decide each case fairly, according to their lights; it’s just that their lights can vary. When we say that a judge is ‘pro-claimant’ we don’t mean that they’re bound to find in favour of the employee whatever the circumstances. We mean they’re a bit more sympathetic, a bit more likely to come down on that side rather than the other. Most cases will end with the same result, regardless of the judge.

Beyond the inevitable individual kinks of the judiciary, any legal system simply has its limits. There is no perfect system that will always get the right result.

In every case, tribunals hear evidence, consider submissions and try to reach the right decision. This isn’t easy. When they start hearing a case, tribunals know nothing about the parties and have no knowledge of the relevant events. All they know is what they’re told in the tribunal room. And tribunals have no magic powers to detect honesty. Cross-examination can illuminate the truth, but it can also obscure it. All lawyers have had cases where a witness they believed to be basically honest fell apart and was made to look thoroughly shifty under cross-examination, because they got confused or brow-beaten.

This problem is made worse by unfairnesses and imbalances within society. In an ideal world, everyone who came before the tribunal would be competently represented and have much the same resources, not only in terms of money, but also intelligence, education, language and confidence. In the real world, some parties can afford lawyers, and some can’t; some parties are clever, articulate, able to present their case, and some aren’t; some have the confidence to tell the truth, warts and all – and thus gain the tribunal’s respect; some feel so powerless and backed into a corner that telling the tribunal what they think it wants to hear seems like the only option. Tribunals are not unaware of these issues; they do their best to see past them. But all the same, all too often the parties are not on an equal footing. In the context of employment this normally means the employee is disadvantaged.

In these circumstances, tribunals can’t always get the answer right. We think they’re right significantly more often they’re wrong (at least in the sense of reaching the conclusion the law requires). But this is of limited consolation if you’re in the 20% or so of cases where they simply get the wrong result.

Any justice system is imperfect and the employment tribunal is no exception. But being less than perfect isn’t the same as being corrupt.

Finally, it’s worth saying that, despite its imperfections, the tribunal also does a lot of good. Claimants do win their cases and receive their compensation. More than that, the existence of the tribunal and its ability to hold employers to account does have a wider impact on employment relationships. Many employers act a little better (or at least a little more lawfully) because of the implicit pressure of their employee’s ability to enforce their legal rights.

324 comments

  1. Douglas

    I agree it is not corrupt neither it is not fit for purpose.
    The process is a toothless legally driven quango, driven by an unaccountable independent authority be it the judge or the lawyers who take part. I have read many of the legal precedents generally the employers have the more powerful lawyers so many of the precedents favour the employers. The few precedents that do not favour employers have been set by aggrieved lawyers.
    Sadly, the system wholly suits the legally represented, as this was not its original purpose, the lawyers know what the Judge wants unrepresented parties do not. If you go, you will see the judge behaves like a terribly spoiled child whilst the lawyers act like a firm placating nanny.
    This bias which does not show up in the statistics can restore the balance of cases won by claimants v respondents.
    The compensation figures are pathetic.
    A Full time employment Judge commands a 6 figure salary for dishing out meagre awards that no way reflect upon the hardships suffered.
    Many claimants and respondents suffer huge levels of stress due to the “sharp practice” of the legal profession.
    The employment tribunals have been spoiled and are a gravy boat for lawyers
    Nothing has changed in courts for hundreds of years
    Dickens “The one great principle of the English law is, to make business for itself”
    Do not under any circumstances put in a claim to the Employment Tribunal
    Calculate your losses and submit an online claim to the CCMCC

    • Douglas

      Shocking!!!! 20% of cases get the wrong result….and I fear this may be the tip of the iceberg as many people from both sides give up long before the case gets to the tribunal.
      Apply this 20% principle to passenger aircraft landing? or your favourite take away.. the results are be unsustainable.
      Don’t bother with this system it does not work.. only for lawyers.

    • Michael

      I’m about to post a substantive reply, but a quick technical note first.

      If you’re dealing with a contract claim, including most wages claims, a county court claim, possibly through the County Court Money Claim Centre, is worth considering.

      However, for many types of employment claim the tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction. If you try to bring an unfair dismissal or discrimination claim in the county court, you will fail — whatever the merits of your case — because it’s the wrong place to bring it. It’s the tribunal or nothing.

      • Douglas

        Almost all unfair dismissals or discrimination cases also fail in the tribunal.
        So it is best not to bother. Bring a personal injury claim to the CCMCC instead. Loss of dignity at work etc..
        The pass marks for legal “tests” have been set far too high it is not like a driving test or any other exam (It is in the public interest for everyone who is capable to drive) where you can keep trying until someone takes you aside with sound advise STOP! In law you only get one chance at the test (We are told it is in the public interest to have only one “bite at the cherry” Finality hence Win or lose). Unrepresented you arrive at court naive untrained and only get “one chance” in a humane society this is a concept I cannot understand.

        • Steven McMillan

          I suffered a stroke as a result shown in medical records as employer bullying. I’m registered blind as a result. I was illegally dismissed being owed £180,000 plus interest. I’ve lost 12 years career & income. My sucess as a business development manager did not help my last contract won being £1/2m. One Nhs trust did not renew contract when news of my illegal dismissal came to light. One council was robbed when he messed up on a large planting job. He asked me if he could blame the plant supplier. No way! He eventually told me he hadn’t watered the plants in. Council were told vandals had trashed the planting. A liar , bully & thief! Where’s the justice? Tel 07759283919 and advise for corrupt legal system denies me justice! Are they no better than the lowlife ex employer who’s command of English was f’n & c’n

        • Addy Ajibola

          Dear sirs

          I really need help with an ET claim which I lost today for racism

          Firstly I had no deposit order
          Mediation was recommended
          The time restrictions were removed so I was not constrained by the 3 months timescale
          Complained about racism was told that I withdrew my complaint a lie

          The Tribunal came back saying I had no evidence and also decided to impose the time limit on my claim. Therefore my smoking gun evidence was irrelevant. They also saw fit to impose a cost on me of €3600. This is the price of standing up against racism. I cannot even appeal as I have no legal help. This is the true price of standing up for your rights

          So is the tribunal corrupt. You decide

    • Michael

      I think we may have to agree to disagree — although in one sense I think we differ in degree, rather than substance.

      We agree that the system isn’t corrupt in the financial sense. And we agree that it has flaws.

      But we disagree about the level of those flaws. Basically, I think the tribunal system is good, but imperfect — while you think it’s fatally flawed to the point of being useless.

      To some extent I think this comes down to expectations. I genuinely think that if the tribunal is getting the right result 80% of the time it’s doing well. Finding the truth and doing justice is a genuinely difficult task, even under the best of circumstances. The relatively underfunded employment tribunal system — without legal aid or much other assistance to unrepresented parties — is not the best of circumstances.

      It’s not analogous either to aircraft landing or take-away. Landing an aircraft is basically a solved problem — although it was a hard one to solve initially — and everyone agrees we need to pay what it takes to achieve 99.999999% success. Tribunals, with competing parties isn’t a solved problem. We just don’t have a formula that will always get us the right answer. Even if we did, we don’t have a consensus in society that we need to pay what it takes to achieve the best possible results (as we see in criminal legal aid, we don’t even have that in yet more serious matters). Take-away is just easier than justice. And even there, a lot of people fail!

      The ‘lawyer problem’ is another element that is more complicated than it might initially seem. In one sense I agree that the tribunal (and those in it) can get captured by legal thinking and be unsympathetic to those who don’t know the code. This needs to be fought against (and many judges agree and do their best).

      But there are two problems. First, again, it’s a genuinely difficult thing to fight. All professions tend to get locked into particular ways of thinking and doing. This is true of lawyers, as it is of doctors, teachers, plumbers and police-officers. To some extent this is part of the point of training and experience — to learn and master particular ways of doing things. So it’s hard

      Second, there is more going on than lawyers just mastering an arbitrary way of approaching the tribunal which the tribunal happens to prefers. There are good ways of presenting a case and bad ways. Lawyers, in general, know the good ways — it’s what we’ve been trained in. To some extent the inequality in arms can be addressed. It’s one of the aims of The Book. But it’s hard to eliminate, for the same reason that it’s hard for a lay-person to master any other technically difficult task, be it flying a plane or plumbing an office building.

      • Douglas

        Michael
        Returning to the purpose of post
        We agree it is not corrupt it cannot be, there are others here who disagree with us!
        The corruption or illegality happens in the work place long before the tribunal, where the balance is understandably 100% in favour of the employer who with the support of legal advisors can undermine the laws and win any in house tribunal or grievance. Forcing many employees into giving up their employment rights only to try an regain them at the employment tribunal.
        A onetime aggrieved employer** who lost a case at the tribunal (bookmakers do not like losing) was so embittered he bought up a company to sell a service to fellow employers. Not losing at the ET is now a big selling point for his company.
        We disagree on the purpose.
        At the tribunal the balance of representation is about 70% employers to 30% claimants.
        Over the years this “imbalance” means much employment case law and the rules favour the employer, how can it not? Claimants cannot afford legal fees and most either withdraw or accept a meagre offer, for an employer** who wants to make a difficult point or force the rules the cost is a drop in the ocean with the lawyers all too keen to help.
        Example – I am sure you know the case law “a tribunal may not substitute its view for that of the employer” Now bear in mind the in house grievance process, it can be seen if an employer with the support of his representative has done his homework no claimant can ever be successful.
        In the court room from legal loyalty it stands to reason that most employment lawyers and therefore judges are sympathetic to the legally represented, it cannot be helped it is human nature, this may on rare occasions give victory to a represented claimant over an unrepresented respondent, producing an unrecorded skew in the statistics.
        The big word in the rules is MAY!!! It occurs many times. The judge MAY this and that. For the above reasons the judge has little choice no matter how incompetent or false the employers story case law dictates that MAY will always favour the employer and the representatives’ point of view.
        For a claimant unless you fancy a dip in shark infested waters to spice up your life the time has come to forget it, the system is a pointless for a claimant.
        It’s worth £33 per hour to a lawyer or £1320 per week or £69000 pa not bad..

        • Douglas

          PS
          The balance – employer 70-30 employee – of representation may be in numbers but I doubt it is the same for hours.
          Again the statistics probably hide the truth in terms of hours or cost I would hazzard a guess – employer 97 – 3 employee the same as the true odds of winning a discrimination case.

          • Taylor

            As a claimant going through the process of tribunal I have to disagree with these figures. I suspect your a solicitor as the time I have had to spend on research for my discrimination case has ran into more than 100 hours. It is made even worse when the respondents solicitors have the evidence proving my case yet still deny it in the hope I will drop it. I agree that the system is not corrupt but if Judges are not completely conversant with the law then they are open to unscrupulous solicitors trying to pervert the system.

      • libby

        Naomi & Michael
        Actually, by financial definition if not by legal definition, the ETs probably ARE corrupt – well at least committing fraud.

        For example, staff have been sacked and been taken to court (and found guilty)because they have got a job based on false information. Not that they were doing a bad job, or had not worked enough hours etc, just that they may have exaggerated their qualifications.
        The argument being they have gained financially for a job they should not have had. So it was classed as fraud.

        By the same measure, if an ETJ is not acting in a fair manner and is bringing in unsound judgements, yet are being paid a huge salary – they are committing fraud. They are I suppose getting money under false pretenses.

        This of course depends on what their job description states.
        If it is to listen fairly and make a judgement based on the evidence presented….. then they are failing to do the job which they receive money for.
        If their job description says to be biased in favour of the employer, and to ignore their perjury and any evidence against them and to find in favour of the employer in 95% of cases….. well then they are doing that.
        But as a tax payer who pays their salary, why is this not openly explained to us? And as a tax payer I would rather my taxes be spent on cancer drugs than to perpetuate this bogus system and support dishonest judges in their life of luxury for 30 and 40 years

      • Lee Dumpleton

        I was shocked when I took an employer to a tribunal at how aggressive and biased the judge was. I could not afford legal representation and the opposing side had their own lawyer and another they had specifically employed. The ‘judge’ – O’Rourke – bullied me incessantly. NEVER go to a tribunal unless you can afford a ‘top’ lawyer.

        • J

          Never go to court
          I had an aggressive bias and perverse judge who disregarded the ETBB.
          I found I had a Barrister who had been discarded but still took £90000 from me. I am still stuck in CofA 3years later.
          My issue is not only have I been punished for bringing a claim to tribunal but the courts have failed to address any of the failures admitted by my employer (a large County Council) A public body who failed to comply with HSE guidelines ACAS code of practice The Equality act Employment law or duty of care.
          I suffer PTSD
          The courtsame in failing to address the issues I brought before them condone the actions of my ex employer and fail in their duty to uphold the law and protect vulnerable people

          • Abdul

            The greatest number of cases of straightforward cheating by Employment Judges is in those which involve County Councils or other Local Councils. One can easily understand why Employment Judges love cheating in favour of local authorities.

        • Abdul

          “NEVER go to a tribunal unless you can afford a ‘top’ lawyer.”

          It has to be added that employing a ‘top’ lawyer is no barrier to the corruption, dishonesty and cheating by Employment Judges against honest Claimants. While having a lawyer may persuade the Employment Judge not to cheat the Claimant about rules and procedures, the corrupt Employment Judge will still cheat in his Judgment alright. Corrupt Employment Judges have been well trained for exactly that, and honest Claimants with very good case have lost even when represented by very good solicitors or barristers. Under the current system all the cards are in the hands of the dishonest Employment Judge, even when he / she is facing a ‘top’ lawyer.

    • Douglas

      The Employment Tribunal is corrupt

      1) By this I mean broken, not fit for purpose, dishonest.

      2) & not involving financial corruption which I believe M & N are referring to and I find myself in agreement with them on that point.

      • Abdul

        Douglas, you copied down definition of “corrupt”. Look at the first definition which you gave : “1. lacking in integrity; open to or involving bribery or other dishonest practices ⇒ a corrupt official, corrupt practices in an election”.
        This is a wide definition. It does not involve only bribery. “Lacking in integrity” covers also “cheating in the judgment because the Respondent is : an important and powerful local dignitary / a friend of the judge / a friend of the friends or relatives of the judge / a very rich person” or if the judge wants to cheat against the Claimant ‘because he dislikes the Claimant for a reason which is not relevant to the case’.

        You prefer to believe that in your case it was only a judicial mistake, nothing else. May be it was like that in your case, but this does not qualify you to continuously say that there is no corruption of the worst kind in Employment Tribunals. By the way, most British people do know what corruption is, they do not need definitions from the dictionary, and they tell you time and again that in their cases it was much worse than just an innocent mistake.

        I gave you in my short e-mail of 12 January 2015 a concise description of serious Employment Tribunal dishonesties. Corruption is the name of the game, in a sense much deeper than you are ready to admit.

        • Douglas

          Abdul..
          We are on the same side and you are right, I cannot bring myself to believe in wholesale corruption as you describe it. I like to believe there is good and fairness in everyone, I may be wrong to hold that belief but that is it….I also believe we are all entitled to our opinions and to freely change them provided they do not harm others physically or mentally. I used the dictionary definition of corruption to clarify in my mind what I mean, if I cause any offense by posting it then I apologise.

        • Karen Fenn

          I wholeheartedly agree that the trybunal system is corrupt.
          I am a small employer and the judge dismissed the claimants blatant lies and made me look a fool even though the claimant was obviously lying. The judge kept on smiling at the claimants solicitor and broad smiling and smirking while both interrogating me with 5 second questions , expecting me to answer imbetween these .
          I did not have adequate representation unfortunately and my representative just let this happen. I felt bullied and ridicule led .

          • Abdul

            Thank you. I am not sure that I can contribute anything to your case or any other case, not being a solicitor. If you leave an e-mail address, I shall send you an e-mail and we shall be able to compare notes (which I assume is what you want).

        • Ed

          Abdul, you say you have identified tens of ways in which the Tribunal cheats. I am compiling my own list.

          Would it be possible for you to post yours here?

    • Deboarah Gilbert

      It has nothing to do the the higher or the best Council. I am a single parent and fought a five year battle with my ET at Newcastle. I did my research and studies and self taught employment law. Over 28 days hearing five year battle apparently against the top Council in Employment Law thirteen witness the respondent had and I had one and some of their were Lawyers themselves, one was top Nun Mother Superior. I won 4 out of 5 claims one including disability discrimination and I won. Represented myself with help from a friend.

      • Abdul

        You have been brave, and you have been lucky. Somehow the judges in your case did not think this case was worth cheating about. I congratulate you. However, the fact that you have been successful should not blind you to the fact that most employment judges are not honest. It does not mean that they are dishonest all the time : only when they want to. But that’s too many times.

      • libby

        Deborah,
        So glad to hear from someone who actually won.
        Unfortunately I did not have another five years left in me to fight the ET itself.
        I had already spent 10 years fighting my employer.
        I also did not have the money….. and my employer had already threatened they would crucify me financially via the ET/EAT.

        I am a single parent and a carer, and the 10 years bullying and discrimination and then years to get to the ET nearly killed me.
        If it was just myself, I may have fought on, but how can I risk the roof over my childrens head, already knowing how corrupt the whole system is?
        And as so many on here have posted, the judgements often seem to bear no connection to what the law says anyway. The judges seem to make it up as they go along. So knowing the law inside out would not guarantee success if the judge has the power to just ignore the law – which is how it seems to work currently.

        After my ET loss I tried to sign up to get a degree in employment law, because I do not feel safe returning to work for ANYONE unless I have an shed load of Employment Law knowledge under my belt.
        It is just not safe in the work place without it. And with all the corruptness I experienced in the ET, I think a little bit of legal knowledge would be more dangerous than none.
        But I would have to find the money to pay for the course, plus the money to support myself and my children while I did the degree…. an impossible

        I spent years fighting the bullying and discrimination I endured at work, by the internal complaints procedure.
        My employer admitted ever single complaint I made about them – including breaking their own rules and breaking employment law.
        They admitted it all.
        But that did not stop the bullying and discrimination, and obviously they were looking to get rid of me at the first opportunity.

        All my work colleagues knew what was going on – they went through their own personal hell most days as well, but 99% of them dare not complain. They just accepted the situation, because they needed the job and the money.
        I think that was why my employer acted as they did in the ET – they wanted to make a very public example of me – to show the rest of the staff what would happen to them if they who dare stand up and defend themselves.

        That is all I ever did, defend myself as they took my job from me, tried to downgrade me, tried several times to sack me, and finally made me redundant – while promoting every single man in the dept.

      • Katherine

        Hi Deboarah

        I would be interested in emailing you for some information on your case as I don’t have any money and I can’t get it taken on a no win no fee I will have to represent myself which at the moment feels very scary.

        Thanks Kate

      • Ben Adam

        My case/situation started from mid-2014 > disability and Victimisation.
        Myself v Local Authority (North West England).

        My new case (2015/2016) is also connected to Victimisation and Disability discrimination as a result of my dismissal from work and ET dismissed my case.

        in my case, I am aware of the holes in the system: My employer is one of the biggest employer in the city.

        The engage high ranked lawyers that also highly ranked freemasons.

        My local authority managers/senior manager are also members of freemasons.
        Freemason are the poison and the pollution of the British Justice.

        I was once invited by a colleague to a freemasons meeting and I refused. He was surprised when I said to him I am not going to evil meeting, this organisation is full of filth and corruption and they are the allies of the satan and I am very disappointed you are part of this filthy organisation. He was very frightened and asked me not tell anyone.

        So that is the main problem in British justice.

        • Abdul

          You are right that freemasonry is a curse on British ‘justice’, a base of yet-untold corruption. As can be expected, after one case in an Employment Tribunal, the Supreme Court has issued ridiculous guidelines about when an Employment Judge (and maybe other judges) should recuse himself / herself. They have specifically decreed that both the Employment Judge and the Respondents being members of the local freemasons is not a reason for an Employment Judge to step down from hearing and deciding a case. ‘Because surely we can rely on the Employment Judge to know to differentiate membership in the freemasons from his duties as an Employment Judge’.

          Similarly, it is no problem if the husband of an EJ has interests (financial, or prestige, or friendship) with the firm of solicitors representing the Respondents. ‘We can rely on an Employment Judge to know to differentiate…’

          (At least this is my understanding of what I have read of this decision)

    • Anon for good reason

      Spot on – the employment tribunals should be completely scrapped, the ‘precedents’ stink, I was gob-smacked at what they had the temerity to say were precedents, they were obscene to the intellect.

      I’m not kidding – they said a war-zone is not a dangerous place!

      I was told 90% of employees lose, this pretty much means that employment tribunals fail to come to a fair conclusion most of the time – you wouldn’t go to all of the hassle of building a case spending the money and going to tribunal if you didn’t think you ought to win.

    • Jane Stanton

      I have witnessed first hand the serious level of corruption. Throw into the mix a global machine such as a bank and any average Joe doesn’t stand a chance. The system is a disgrace

      • Abdul

        The ‘system’ (=employment tribunals) is a disgrace : the level of criminality and corruption of employment tribunals is staggering. However, no political party is interested in the least in raising this issue, just as no political party is interested in the topic of ‘corruption’ in general. If you try to write comments about it to newspapers, you may also find that there is a determined group of people who are benefitting from this system and have a vested interest in its preservation, who write to newspapers always with the same type of comment : that we are bitter only because we have lost a case, and that Britain’s judicial system is the most honest in the world. You need to know what to answer to these servants of the Establishment and of its corruption.

    • Sarah

      The Employment Tribunal System is Corrupt in the UK especially Leeds and Manchester, who have been classed as faviouble to employer within the industry and should be investigated. They are sexist with most members being of male gender and do not fully understand disability descrimination cases when linked to depression or other mental illnesses. Also by applying extortionate fees to claimants wishing to make an application automatically puts the claimant at a disadvantage. The whole system is corrupt and needs to be investigated.

    • J

      So many stories all very similar
      Maybe it is time for employees to come together and make changes within the system
      Judges supported by those who have experience of being in the position of both sides and understanding of the workplace.
      Judges who understand people as well as the law and understand natural justice and common sense.
      Posters on the court room wall showing ACAS code of practice, Human rights, Employment law and
      Options for the Judge to ask the audience, telephone numbers to ask a friend and 50/50 chance of getting it right would good

      • Abdul

        1. “Judges supported by those who have experience of being in the position of both sides and understanding of the workplace.”

        This is supposed to be done by ‘trade union representatives’ who sit as lay members on Employment Tribunals. But here the power and wisdom (or cunning) of the Establishment comes into play. By far most trade union representatives side with corrupt, unjust decisions. I have elaborated on this in this site and in others.

        2. “Judges who understand people as well as the law and understand natural justice and common sense.”

        No, no. You go wrong here. Employment Judges understand all that alright. The reasons why so many decisions are not simply unfair but actually corrupt is not because Employment Judges do not know or understand those things, but because they knowingly prefer to cheat, they consciously decide to be corrupt, because they believe that that’s where their personal interests lie (for example : siding with the evil but strong Respondent against honest but poor and weak Claimant).

        3. “Posters on the court room wall showing ACAS code of practice, Human rights, Employment law and Options for the Judge to ask the audience, telephone numbers to ask a friend and 50/50 chance of getting it right would good”.

        I am not sure that ACAS are any better than Employment Judges : their main interest is in getting their salaries and promotions.
        Human rights, Employment Law : Employment Judges do what they want, in total disregard of these. Posters reminding them of these will not help : there is a need for tough sanctions against EJ’s corruption – only then they will think that it is not in their personal interests to embrace corruption.

    • Howard Fredrics

      The system is completely corrupt because it allowed a Tribunal Judge, who was previously the chief legal counsel for the Royal Mail, whereby his bosses were two of the Board of Governors of the University against whom I’d filed my claim. These governors were directly responsible for his having obtained his Judgeship, having written recommendations for him. He knew all of the University officials involved in my case quite well, and should have recused himself, but he refused to do so. As a result, my case was dismissed before trial on the grounds of my supposedly unreasonable conduct — I was charged with harassing the politically connected VC of the University via a whistleblower website, despite the police having found no evidence of harassment, and the charges were ultimately dismissed on the grounds that the site was in the public interest and that harassment laws weren’t intended to protect individual reputations. But the ET Judge refused to reinstate the case after dismissing it on the grounds of my supposedly unreasonable conduct, which turned out to be perfectly reasonable!

      • Abdul

        What you describe here is a perfectly common occurrence in Employment Tribunals : in fact I believe that they are built so as to ensure that an Employment Tribunal, for a case involving powerful public figures, will be composed of personal friends of such Respondents, and of people who have strong personal financial / political interests in a victory for the Respondents.

        We know that the Supreme Court has played its part in the strengthening of this corruption, as did the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office.

        What was the name of this particular Employment Judge who has refused to recuse himself ? I know of one Employment Judge who is a serial refuser to recuse himself.

  2. Robert Williams

    Thank you for a thoughtful and much needed post, although I fear it might be slightly optimistic. By all means edit (or ignore) this, but I would like to share my own experience, limited though it is in comparison to your own.

    A few years ago I offered to help a friend fight a constructive dismissal claim held in the Southampton tribunal. Not a close friend, but someone who was facing mental collapse and I couldn’t stand by. Inevitably I was drawn into a long and gruelling process that no-one in their right mind would volunteer for.

    Initially we consulted with a very capable employment solicitor who advised that there was a strong case but cautioned about the inevitable uncertainties and also that the Southampton tribunal as a whole had a reputation as being very employer-friendly. Using him for the duration would have been very attractive but was completely unaffordable. My friend’s union were sympathetic but in the end reluctant to be drawn in and of course were in some ways conflicted.

    In preparation for a complex 3 day hearing I sat in on other cases at the Southampton tribunal and witnessed some shockers. In one case the respondent’s solicitor arrived from Belfast of all places (it was a local dispute) and had an incomplete and jumbled bundle so a few hours adjournment was called to allow her to put something useable together. Still pages were missing, numbering was inconsistent etc but worse was her complete lack of grasp of the case. The judge became understandably impatient and intervened to cross-examine the claimant himself with a series of quick-fire questions designed to confuse and, effectively, trick the claimant into contradicting himself. It was clear to the impartial observer that this was the case (and fair enough, I suppose, had the respondent’s representative done it) and immediately upon achieving his objective he retired to consider the judgement, which was of course against the claimant on the grounds of his unreliable testimony. He was a young lad, very nervous, and clearly failed to have anything approaching a fair hearing. No suggestion of any payment anywhere, but I would still judge this to have been a corrupt process.

    Not surprisingly, albeit before a different EJ, we also lost our case when my friend (who was still mentally unstable) was made to look unsure of herself by a very clever and professional barrister employed by the respondent. The respondent’s own staff were caught out in several deceits and concealments and their CEO (whom I had called) was visibly shocked and surprised at some of the events he heard for the first time in the hearing (not from his own staff, needless to say). But none of this counted for the judge, who was highly selective in his summation.

    In a sense justice was done in part, in that the bully responsible for the case mysteriously took early retirement shortly afterward and I have no doubt that a number of people were admonished in private, but my friend was otherwise left mentally scarred and, of course, substantially out of pocket to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds in lost income etc.

    Of course my experience (other than reading the appeal court reports) is limited to a half dozen cases, but I fear this is all too common and where it is not an individual judge but an entire tribunal that acquires this sort of reputation, I am afraid I would describe this as a corruption of the process.

    Incidentally, I am, when reading the EAT cases, also shocked at times at some of the findings against employers, although I suspect the bias is mostly the other way.

    • Douglas

      Robert..
      Like you I thought the system was corrupt.
      Throughout the process the layman learns.
      Shocked at first by the blatant lies of the respondents?
      As a claimant destroyed because nobody believes or considers anything you have to say.
      Then shocked by the apparent bias of the Judge?
      Astonished at the cardinal rule of law finality….
      Etc etc…….
      But really it is all very primeval bullying. The law in the UK is based upon Latin and Greek law where in times gone by the vast majority of people were slaves or serfs governed by a group of elite thugs. When you strip English law back that’s what you get. A louder boorish minority there is no space for sympathy in a tribunal Mr Nasty will always prevail over Mr Nice.
      It is not corruption just age old human nature….

      • Pet

        I’m due to represent myself at a unfair dismissal ET in July. I don’t expect to win and not because I have a case as I do. But
        1. Representing myself as I can’t afford legal
        2. Biased towards employers who will have the best legal team.
        3. Blatant lies in the witness statement.

        Its a very sad state of affairs with the negatives before I’ve even stepped in. I have to go through the process as I will eat myself up if I don’t try. But don’t expect to win.

    • Michael

      Certainly won’t edit or ignore — part of why we posted this is to see what other people think.

      In terms of the tribunal having a reputation as being against employees, I’m not sure that’s true. Certainly a lot of employees feel that they’ve been treated badly. But my experience is a lot of employers feel exactly the same way. To some extent, that’s always going to happen in an adversarial system, which means drawing wider conclusions is difficult.

      One possibility, of course, is that tribunals are just inconsistent. That’s a fairly common criticism. But I think the nature of the jurisdiction makes it hard to say for sure.

  3. Douglas

    P.S
    Stressful Job!!!!
    Nice work if you can get it by the way the Judges salary! that’s a life time award who can retire when they like, unlike the invariably jobless and penniless claimants. So who has the stressful job… get real..

    • Michael

      I’m not suggesting Judges are terribly hard done by or that litigants should necessarily feel sympathy for them. They’re undoubtedly very well-paid compared with the general population. And anyone sane would rather be a judge than a litigant.

      But, having said that, I do think it’s a stressful and difficult job.

        • Chris

          In my experience high payment, incompetence/ dishonesty is just a reality that average Joe has to suffer with. Employment judges such as employment judge Harper who resides at Cardiff can be extremely cowardice ask them to justify their decision they will not. They have incited and created an industry with a silent code of conduct fit for a criminal extremely easily manoeuvred / manipulated by similar characters I.e lawyers. Many lawyers also suffer with dishonest.

      • libby

        Perhaps if Judges were honest and acted impartially it would not be as stressful. I was always told it is much easier to tell the truth – because you don’t have to keep remembering what story you have told people – you are just telling the truth. But lie, and you have to remember all the details of the lie, and which lie you told which person etc. Plus there must be a subconscious fear (however corrupt the WHOLE profession is) that you may be caught out.
        So if they want a less stressful job, be honest and fair.Simples

        • Abdul

          Their job is cheating, and it is not stressful for them at all. It is stressful for you. But they enjoy it.

          Remember, they have a lifelong training and experience in doing exactly that : being dishonest, cheating, being serial liars. More than that, the secret gang that selects which solicitor or barrister is going to be appointed as an Employment Judge, in all likelihood (so I believe) secretly checks one’s ability to cheat, as in some coded way attested by local Employment Judges and especially the Regional Employment Judge.

          I bet that our cheating Employment Judges enjoy it so much, that during their sessions of joint drunkenness they probably boast one to another about the cheats of the last week.

    • Ms Botevyle

      Having won 3 10 hearing for bias and invited to add perversity I then have to take the appeal forward.
      This has nothing to do with my case – with PTSD I now have another case another trauma to face
      Disability discrimination apparently doesnt happen in ET and it isn’t an area of law.
      I made my complaint to regional Judge before the appeal but now I have another case with the JO – nothing to do with my case or the appeal for bias, perversity and disability discrimination by the ET Judge, nothing to do with my case against my employer a local authority who caused my accepted stress related disability this is a case against the regional judges failures.
      Oh and a premlinary hearing threw out the bias and perversity ( accepted knowinly false affidavits from the local authority) and the confirmation that ET judges and found I had no prospects of winning an appeal ( review denied)
      Have you forgotten I already stress related disability accepted knowledge 2008 and now diagnosed with PTSD ?
      Trying to find a Solicitor under legal aid……

  4. Oscar Alvarez

    YES,

    You are talking rubbish, I was a trade union rep and I have been to a few ETs representing my members and the judge never understood our point of view and we firmly believed it was not my members fault.

    One time we wanted to put forward our CCTV of the bus where it clearly showed that my driver acted under duress, the Company lawyer knew that we were right and did not put the CCTV in the bundle so I EMAIL Watford ET to request viewing (they came up with some bullshit excuse saying that they did not have viewing equipment) I said don’t worry we will bring our PC to the court room. When we brought our PC the judge refuse to see the CCTV, I said to my member out-loud and facing the judge, “You just lost the case” and he did. CORRUPTION TO SAVE MONEY TO A WELL OFF COMPANY. It was a unfair dismissal case.

    Anyhow I have loads of this cases and all have been in a similar way.

    And now they make it harder to make a claim and it acts as a deterrent for fear of losing the huge deposit.

    I think you got that data from ONLY positive judge reviews towards employers

    • Douglas

      Interesting. The judge also refused to see my video that totally proved the the respondent was lying….it was an on the spot eyewitness report of my ordeal from the BBC.

    • Anna

      I have had the same experience with Watford!!! I am living proof that the employment tribunal are biased towards employers. I was contacted by a recruitment agency to apply for a sales role with a low basic wage but with commission. I was offered the job and the CEO of the company offered me a higher figure of commission than was advertised. After two months of employment I had not received a contract, after five months my colleague (who started at the same time as me and was actually offered £2k more basic wage than me and £3k more commission) he had also not received his contract. After a lot of pressure they eventually provided us with contracts, that were completely in contrast to what we were both offered. I raised the issue and was faced with bare faced lies that no commission was ever offered to me. They asserted that the recruitment agency lied. I left the job and accepted one of the other offers that I had received at the same time offering commission. My colleague also left for the same reasons. I took my previous employer to tribunal. At the strike out hearing the judge was completely on my side and said ‘I totally understand why she is here, I am looking at a job advert with a figure of commission and you have paid her nothing’. The evidence did not change from then to the hearing. My previous employer had two solicitors and a QC representing them, I had a legal expert that a friend recommended to me who was very disappointing. My colleague came and gave evidence that they had treated him the same way and offered him commission and then not paid it. The offer was also made verbally to him. The contract that they provided in the bundle as evidence of the contract presented to me after 5 months had in fact been falsified, the point referring to salary had been completely changed again. I had never seen this copy. Despite all of this evidence and throughout the case the judge clearly seemed to prefer my evidence and raised many issues of discrepancy in my employers argument-my case was dismissed.

      In the judgement the judge ruled that he found it hard to believe that despite having less experience than my colleague I was offered a more attractive salary than him. This was absolute rubbish-my colleague clearly stated in his evidence the figures he was offered and they were more than what I was offered. Now the only option I have is to appeal-which I do not have the money for and according to the system I can afford to pay-despite the fact the cost would leave me with £200 salary to live on. This is an example of how employment tribunals are unjust and unfair.

    • I was there

      This gentleman is 100% correct. From my personal experience many Employment Judges are corrupt. Employment Judges should have to list out all the solicitors they work for or have worked for AND if these solicitors have interests with the employers.

  5. An Employment Solicitor

    Michael,

    Surely you accept that the Tribunals are becoming more employer friendly as time goes by. The new ET Rules, and Rule 21 in particular, are an example of this.

    There are built in frustrations in the system… A Claimant has to apply to amend their claim in limited circumstances but an incompetent Respondent can put in a paltry defence, frustrate the Claimant by sticking to the same, and simply hire Counsel to make an entirely new argument for them at Court. It is simply not right and I would guess one of the great sources of frustration for the lay person.

    What of the lack of enforcement of directions against Respondents? Their representatives, and I use the word loosely, can get away with blue murder before the ET will lift a finger. God forbid a Claimant rep behaves in the same manner for costs and/or a Deposit Order will often follow.

    p.s my experience is that Southampton has one pleasant and reasonable Judge and one highly disagreeable (for Claimants) one.

    • AK

      You summarise so beautifully what I am facing in my ET. The solicitors and counsel on the respondent’s side believe they have a licence to fabricate events on any matters not covered by documents in the bundle. Thank God that I had the preference of doing things over emails than talk to people.

      • Abdul

        More than that :many times solicitors and witnesses of the Respondents feel free to lie and to fabricate events because some judges encourage that, being totally biased against the Claimants. Even more ‘more than that’ : sometimes when they do not do it, or if they do it badly, judges do it for the Respondents.

        • AK

          Just for the record, my eventual hearing also took the same turn as is pointed out by so many different comments. A paltry defence mounted, very vague witness statements produced on behalf of respondent, a scatter gun approach to cross examination taken by the respondent’s counsel – and the judge then picks out a winning theme for the respondents. I am however appealing the decision…. lets see how capable and unbiased EAT judges are.

          • Abdul

            Good luck to you and please let us readers know how you have fared in the appeal. Just be mentally ready for any possible disappointment : we do talk here about a most corrupt system.

          • Mark Eaves

            I can tell you with confidence that the EAT judges are very capable and clever. During my protracted UDL case, I appealed two case management orders in the EAT. [ I talk about one of them in my post here on 28 July. ] I also appealed the outcome of the full-merits hearing. However, I cannot assure you that the EAT judges are unbiased.

            If you believe that your tribunal acted in good faith, but made errors in law in reaching its judgment, then you have a good chance at the EAT.

            If, however, you suspect that your tribunal was biased against you, then I fear you have no chance at the EAT. As you know, you will not get anywhere by alleging bias. What we lay people call ‘ ignoring evidence’ or ‘ being selective with the facts’, is likely to meet with the response that the EAT cannot consider such matters. Even if the tribunal made appealable errors in law, be prepared for the EAT to ignore these, if you suspect the tribunal made these errors deliberately to get ‘the right decision’ in your case.

            In appealing against the judgment in my full – merits hearing, I eventually whittled my grounds of appeal down to a few points in a skeleton argument I prepared for a Rule 3(10)hearing last year. In summary, the ET had erred in law by [1] failing to consider and make findings about the principal ( and arguably sole ) reason for summary dismissal given by the respondent in its dismissal letter; [2] and by substituting its view in saying that a reason for dismissal given by the respondent was not a reason for dismissal;[3] and by treating what the respondent had said merely merited a warning ( not a final warning ) as the principal reason for summary dismissal; and [4] had further substituted its view by ( effectively) introducing its own new reason for dismissal.
            All pretty good stuff, I thought.

            The EAT judge ignored me. It was as though I had not said all of that. He took one of my points, greatly modified it, then dismissed his modified point. The judgment concluded by acknowledging that I had made no appeal about payment of notice pay, and went on to explain why such an appeal would have been rejected also, if it had been made.

            The EAT mirrored the behaviour of the lower tribunal in ignoring me and completely reconfiguring my case.

            I too wish you the best of luck.

          • libby

            Interesting to read your account AK.
            It explains much about my case.
            The respondents Barrister made one argument which I managed to blow out of the water despite 2 days in the witness stand being bullied by him.
            He even admitted in his summing up that my redundancy was unfair, but in the judgement the Judge presented a completely different argument to find in their favour.
            An argument even their Barrister had not argued.
            In effect the Judge said a written contract was only valid on the day it was written!
            So presumably the people I bought my house from 30 years ago can come back and reclaim ‘their’ house, and hand me the £30,000 I paid for it back then, because the contract we both signed at the time is not legally binding!
            You have got to love the law…… NOT

          • AK

            Will update everyone.. still waiting for the EAT preliminary hearing to be listed.. thankfully may have ELAAS representation.

          • Mark Eaves

            Re yr further post 14 Jan:-
            I am certain the EAT will provide you with an ELAAS representative. I got an ELAAS rep for my Rule 3(10) hearing.

            She said she could appeal on only two points. One was a point picked out from my skeleton argument, which she greatly modified, in a way that made it easy to dismiss, I thought. She was also prepared to make a point about payment of my notice pay, something that thought irrelevant. She agreed that all my points of law were good ones, but she was only able to present the two points she had come prepared to make . For some strange reason, I wasn’t in mood that day to press her as to her reasoning; her comments were very strange.

            I asked whether it would be better if I presented the case myself. She very readily agreed.

            So I did it myself, and, if you read my post dated 14 December, you can see what happened.

            After the hearing, she was still waiting around, so I told her what had happened. Her manner seemed distant/ remote; she just said ‘ they’re like that sometimes’.

            I hope you have a better experience than I did. Again, best of luck at the EAT, but, to be on the safe side, I would advise you to live your life now on the basis that your case is finished.

          • AK

            A glimmer of hope as the EAT judge permitted at a PH for the case to be listed for a FH, with largely un-amended grounds. Will keep you posted. Although matters are at a stage I am minded to settle – just because it seems like have gone on forever.

    • Mark Eaves

      I was very interested in your remarks about the ease with which respondents can change their defence.

      The dismissal letter I received listed a couple of instances of alleged misconduct, meriting warnings of some sort – it wasn’t clear what -, and then it referred to an irretrievable breakdown in the employment relationship. It wasn’t clear what this had arisen from, but on appeal I found out that this breakdown was the cause of my dismissal, and the breakdown itself – though this still wasn’t clear – appeared to have resulted from the criticisms I had made of management, in defending myself in the disciplinary process.

      In its ET3, the respondent made no mention of the breakdown, but treated the alleged instances of misconduct as the reasons for dismissal. It particularly emphasised one thing, and said, months later, that this one thing went to the heart of the reason to dismiss.

      In its judgment, the Tribunal substituted its view, by saying that what the respondent said went to the heart of the reason to dismiss, was not the reason the respondent had dismissed me: I was dismissed for the other instance of alleged misconduct, taken in conjunction with an earlier instance of misconduct, that the respondent had never mentioned, let alone took any action over.

      For completeness, I will add that the ET3 had been amended just before the hearing, to resurrect the “irretrievable breakdown”, this time as an alternative reason for dismissal ( and SOSR), but without making it very clear what caused the breakdown. At a late stage in the hearing, the respondent’s counsel withdrew the amendment, on the grounds that the breakdown arose from conduct, and so was not SOSR.

      The ET had said that the dismissal letter was badly drafted. The moral of this story, for respondents is: keep your dismissal letters vague and wide- ranging; keep changing your defence, and rely on the Employment Judge to pick something out and fashion a winner. However, I need to point out that the respondent in this case was HM Tribunals Service. My experience may not be shared by very many users of the ETs, and so I shall say no more, but thank you for your interesting points.

  6. Abdul

    My word, decades of hear no evil see no evil. Life must be very much a rose garden in the ET arena. How romantic.

  7. Dave Ratchford

    Agree with all of the original post and that it’s the only game in town and that people should join a Union – however, I believe the article should be qualified with a couple of caveats that emphasise the dimension of power more strongly.
    Whilst it is certainly true that many people who would otherwise have been ‘locked out’ of justice have succeeded at ET in obtaining compensation for being disadvantaged, I cannot help but note that only less than 20% of discrimination cases are successful at ET. Now, there are obviously a range of explanations for this: the best cases are settled before ET (which clearly wouldn’t account for the stats); there are a huge amount of ‘race/gender/etc card playing’ cases which have no foundation (right wing fantasist nonsense); your own helpful allusions to Milgram and the bias people show to authority (which protected group members by definition have less of).
    My personal view is that the Milgram experiment integrates with what Tajfel and Turner had to say about Social Identity Theory – that people cohere into groups (probably as an evolutionary mechanism for efficiency as it’s tough to bring down a sabre-tooth or mammoth on your own…) and they then psychologically find ways to reinforce and sustain that group membership. One of those ways is to devalue other groups, which we see most vividly in situations of armed conflict where some terribly wrong stereotypes (which are then very hard to unpick) are wheeled out. This easily leads to any group in power being inclined to devalue other groups who are not in power, both collectively and individually.
    It’s not hard then to make the leap to the justice system and see majority white, male, heterosexual decision makers without disabilities making judgements that favour employers. In fact, I’d argue as an extension of the old King v Great Britain China Centre case, that the disadvantage is so systemic that it pervades the evidence and the judiciary should be explicitly taught to see past the superficial and be savvy to such nuances as might reveal themselves. So, whilst I agree with you on the lower levels of resource many of these claimants have to bring to the table, I’d also say that it seems to me that there’s also a clear deficit on the justice system’s side.
    The second related point I’d make is that, in the absence of any direct law against bullying, we will continue to see people contort cases to fit the existing criteria in an attempt to obtain justice. We need a law on this massive injustice that, like very other unaddressed factor in any system, continues to seep out into negative outcomes for organisations and people.
    Finally, whilst I do very much agree with your outline that it’s the only game in town and there is no corruption or bribery, I cannot overlook these additional perspectives – expecially in the context of the present dismantling of what little protections employees have had: the erasure of the Equality Questionnaire will kill many otherwise promising cases; the regression of the qualifying period to two years; the completely inexcusable imposition of fees for justice which is causing a huge drop in complex cases. All of this makes for a toxic brew – in short, ETs are not corrupt, but they are currently not fair either.

    • Douglas

      Dave
      I find myself in agreement what most of what you say, my vocabulary puts it another way. .
      It is interesting to note you say the Equality Questionnaire will be erased?
      I have experience of what I would say was the annulment of the “Equality Act 2010 prohibited conduct questionnaire” by Lord Elias. In that he made a judicial decision not to answer one that I had addressed personally to him. This request should have been a formality for a man of such seniority, but he chose to ignore the form, the 8 weeks passed without even an acknowledgement. When I complained of this conduct, the Judicial complains commission ruled that his decision was a part of the judicial decision process and they were unable to interfere. I appealed to the ombudsman who although he identified the complaint was unable to interfere with judicial independence. So you have it the “Equality Act 2010 prohibited conduct questionnaire” is another pointless document.

  8. Bhavinchandra Purohit

    Dear Sir
    Your article is too good and many facts are very correctly stated. However I can understand that you are in business and have to go soft on some aspects of tribunal administration which you and we all are aware. Let me share some of my experience which I have personally seen at tribunal.
    1) I have seen Tribunal panel (including judge &members) going for number of times in the private room during the hearing. Each time it was Claimant who have made a good point. I have heard them talking over the phone from the private rooms while they have gone for only consultation.
    2) That’s not corruption but it is a corrupt practice.
    3) I have seen the R’s senior lawyers coming out of the Hearing day just before the judgments are going to be delivered. Again that’s not corruption but corrupt practice.
    4) I have seen Tribunal including Judges and Members going very soft when the Respondent’s are caught not making correct disclosures or have totally failed to disclose vital documents. On the other side if this remains a case of Claimant the situation is different. Again that’s not corruption but corrupt practice
    5) I have seen vital e-mails send by Claimant and/or Representative gone missing and the Judge very cool will say that he has not seen the e-mail and even noted in the Judgment that he has not seen e-mail due to the failure of Tribunal Administration. Although the content of E-mails were important to the claim and the judge should have been considerate, the Judge awarded cost and the claim lost but in Judge own defense he writes in judgment that e-mail not seen and blames administration. Again that’s not corruption but it is perfect example of Corrupt practices.
    6) Even though with all bad, I agree with you without the judicial system there will not be a justice and we just have to pray to god that we do not get a Judge or a Tribunal who is not following corrupt practices
    If I continue to write there is a lot. I have spent more than 5years in UK Tribunals and have seen all the Rainbow colors of Tribunal and the loss to the poor Claimant who came with lots of hope for justice.

  9. Vic

    I am an in-house employment lawyer for a large organisation. I would just like to make a couple of points. Much has been mentioned in tthe comments about the bias towards respondents and particularly those who are legally represented. This does not reflect my experience. As a large respondent, we are expected to bend over backwards to accommodate unrepresented claimants. I have no problem with this in most cases – I know how confusing the law and the tribunal system is and I also want the Claimant, and the Respondent, to have a fair hearing. Unfortunately, we are often bombarded by overwhelming irrrelevant documents, threats and arguments which we are expected to deal with at our cost. Trying to get the ET to strike out or effectively case manage these, frankly, hopeless cases is impossible. Consequently, respondents can end up incurring costs of tens of thousands of pounds in defending a case that was doomed from the outset and of course the chances of recovering any of those costs are small. This process unrealistically raises the hopes of the claimants when their claims are allowed to continue, causes enormous stress for them and the respondent’s employees (who are people too and do not like being accused of discrimination or bullying) and generally wastes averyone’s time and money. So I would like to see legal representation available for all claimants too but I would also like to see Judges take a more robust view of claimants, represented or not, at an early stage of the proceedings where their claims are clearly unmeritorious.

    • Loy

      Vic, Will your firm support audio/voice recording of ET and EAT proceedings? Will your firm support full disclosure that would help to establish the facts?

      My experience tells me that big firms of solicitors would bend to accommodate cases that they have considered to be very weak but would do all within their powers including extreme distortion and misrepresentation so as to frustrate very strong cases from Litigant-in-Persons.

      I believe one way of improving the fairness of the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal is to allow voice recording.

      There is a judge who has been at the EAT almost forever who only reads the judgment of the ET and any arguments advanced by Counsel. He is synonymous with everything wrong in the judiciary but because he is well connected he cannot be removed. God helps anyone going before him without a Counsel.

  10. AK

    I agree with the broad sentiments about employment law having become skewed towards employers more than employees. Parties with deeper pockets are more willing to test the law and set precedents that have a crippling effect on future cases. You only have to look at the Burchell test, Johnson exclusion, Software 2000 -v- Andrews principles on Polkey, Anglian Home Improvements -v- Kelly. If a tribunal had ruled against the claimant in any of these cases, I would be surprised if any of the Claimants would have had the resolve / advice to take the case to the higher courts and establish a precedent. The very few employee precedents in relation to unfair dismissal that are Claimant friendly are Norton Tool, Geys -v- Societe Generale. In the latter, it took very high stakes involved for the high profile Claimant to take it to the Supreme Court.

    • An Employment Solicitor

      I can find no issue with that. I think it is very difficult for both Claimant and Respondent solicitors when the opponent is unrepresented, or ‘represented’ by one of these godawful employment consultancies.

      The system would be much better (and probably cheaper) if there was free representation for Claimants, the initial sift was more robust and directions were rigorously enforced.

  11. Douglas

    ” the existence of the tribunal and its ability to hold employers to account does have a wider impact on employment relationships. Many employers act a little better (or at least a little more lawfully) because of the implicit pressure of their employee’s ability to enforce their legal rights.”

    I do not agree with “acting better”
    I agree with “acting lawfully” – (the only reason why tribunals are not corrupt)

    Among many other unfair procedures, this has led employers to develop the horrific prospect of a zero hours contract..

    A contract which leaves people searching for work, reduced to a form of prostitution, with a minimum of employment rights, most of which have been concluded in the employers favour in the current “lawful” tribunal system.

    The ownership and running of the employment tribunal is in the hands of the vast majority of lawyers including those who become judges, who represent employers.. The lawyers make the rules for their paymasters…it is a simple as that. It is not corrupt just terribly unfair and pointless.

  12. Abdul

    Naomi and Michael. I am sure that you genuinely believe in what you have written, but it only shows that what is basically detective work to prove criminality of judges (and, yes, mainly Employment Judges) is best left not in the hands of solicitors. There is nothing correct in what you have written, and I do not suggest a complete treatise against your views. But here are a few points for you. Needless to say, I do not say that any judge is in fact corrupt or criminal, and everything which I say is simply what I believe, nothing more.
    (1) Why in the 21st century are Claimants (and Respondents) prevented from recording the Hearings ? Why is it left to the consent of the Tribunal, which in some places (most towns ?) is never given ? Would you agree that it is normally much more difficult for the small Claimant to find someone who has the time, the talent and the will to take notes ? I’ll tell you what it is : the Government want Employment Judges to be able to cheat at will, and recording is not cheating-friendly.
    (2) Would you agree with me that a ‘biased judge’ is in fact a criminal ? Being biased is not some technical quirkiness of our ruling classes as exemplified by judges ; it is a deliberate attempt to transfer money and prestige (and may be more) from the deserving side to the non-deserving side, which by my definition is a crime. Can we agree on that ? If I have done something equivalent in any other job, I shall be doing time in prison and the judge will call me ‘a criminal’.
    (3) Why is it that judges which were found ‘biased’ by the EAT are left in their job, rather than being immediately struck out so as not even being allowed to practice as solicitors, on account of their dishonesty ? It seems that they pay no price whatsoever, and are left free to continue cheating whenever they so wish. I strongly believe in “once a criminal – always a criminal” and “one strike and you are out” – to my mind, anything else is favouritism and corruption. There are plenty of other people who would be thrown out of their jobs due to such formal conviction.
    (4) Why is it, if not for purposes of corruption, that judges who were declared biased by the EAT not only that they are not struck out, but they do not have to notify the two sides about this ‘conviction’ well in advance, let’s say two months in advance. It is exactly the same as when a convicted paedophile or murderer is coming to live near to me : I believe that I have a human right to be notified immediately about that. If the Employment Judge let me know in advance that he has this conviction, it is not only that I can object to him and appeal to the EAT against his appointment. Even if he presides over the Hearing, all my conduct of myself and of the case (not being a solicitor) will be different, predicated on my belief that I have against me a terminally-biased judge, a criminal. And all my treatment of an appeal to the EAT will be different, as I shall believe that despite all your warnings that EAT Judges hate hearing the word ‘bias’, I do have a great chance being able to mention that this judge already has a conviction. It can be only for purposes of corruption that Claimants are not notified that judges have already been convicted for bias. Remember : for an unrepresented side, it is very difficult to discover that a judge has such a conviction ; may take this side years, if at all, to find out.
    (5) You say in your book that the EAT do not like hearing about ‘bias’. They are not being put there, in theory, to like or not to like, but to judge with honesty according to facts and proofs. Don’t you think that if all of them did their job honestly, there would be many more ‘convictions’ of judges for bias ? Take for example Regional Employment Judges. On the internet I found a good quantity of writings about the so-alleged dishonesty of specific REJs. But how many REJs have been declared ‘biased’ by the EAT in the last 20 years ? Is it zero, one, two ? Obviously, I do not know. May be you can tell us the answer (with a list of references, please). But if the answer is zero, does not this tell something ? (And I am not an extremist : I met people who believe that there isn’t one honest judge in England, while I believe that there are quite a few).
    (6) I really had a good laugh. You say that they would not appoint to the Tribunal a judge or lay members who have a strong inherent balance and conflict of interests, because this will be a reason for a successful appeal ? You must be joking. On two counts (A) These Tribunal members do not tell you their occupation, business contacts, work contacts etc. They are simply landed on you, the small Claimant, and you assume that ‘surely in our Britain they would not put people of the Respondents on the Tribunal’. But of course they do. It takes you years to discover that, and by then your 42 days are gone. (B) British courts have a history of stretching the limits of what constitute ‘conflict of interests or inherent bias’ so as to get their friends out of trouble.
    Ok, these are enough points for a starter. Let’s see you tackling these : thank you in advance.

    • Claimant condemned

      Thank you Abdul for placing my mind at ease.

      I have just taken a thumping as claimant in the ET, where, unrepresented, I was humiliated and made to look a liar, when my case was brought in good faith and not borne out of whingeing.

      What I found was an ETJ that quite obviously had it in his mind to crush the complaint as he issued an order for costs against me fo £15K, despite the Respondent legal costs only being £6K.

      I delivered heaps of evidence but was thwarted by the combined cross questioning of both Judge and Counsel and the denial to allow relevant questions of Respondent witnesses, despite there being sufficient reason so to do.

      It is simply unrealistic to think you can, as layperson, bring a claim to the ET and win, but in seeing your comments, at least I know I’m not alone. thanks

      • Abdul

        To Claimant Condemned.

        After I lost my case I made quite a bit of research. I realize now that most Employment Judges have at their disposal tens of different techniques of cheating. Your comments remind me of these.

        For example : If the Claimant looks sharp and clever, one who can put the witnesses of the Respondents in trouble, judges may hardly give him time for cross examination. Not only that they will totally ignore the amount of time which the Claimant will say that he is going to need for cross-examination, but when the Hearing starts, the Claimant may find that the very limited but specific amount of time which was guaranteed to this Claimant in the Order or Judgment at the PHR of the case is suddenly being cut by days by the Employment Judge in the Hearing and those days are added to the Respondent. More than that, if the Claimant is doing well and putting the Respondent in trouble, you may find that the Employment Judge not only orders the Claimant not to ask questions which cause troubles to the witnesses of the Respondent, but cuts even more, and on the spot (in the middle of the day, just like that because he is angry that the Claimant proves his/her case) the amount of time which is allowed to the Claimant to pursue cross-examination, cuts it even from what he said on the first day of the Hearing that the Claimant would have, which was already a cut compared to what the PHR says categorically that this is the minimum time that the Claimant will have for cross-examination. (The PHR Judgment or Order mentions that the Claimant said, let’s say, that he needed at least 10 days for cross-examination, and says that the Claimant will have a minimum of 3 full days for that).

        So all this is just one technique of cheating. Claimants should stop being made to feel that they lost due to their incompetence. Plenty of claims are lost due to corruption.

      • rosemary rimmer-clay

        I took a case to an employment tribunal in the south of england. The whole process was about legal niceties rather than the truth. Bullied, excluded from training, hidden away in a backroom, my career destroyed. the moronic judge then decided to awards costs against me too. Although i haven’t paid a single penny…
        I have recently uncovered documents that expose the perjury and lies of the two chief witnesses. I can’t retrieve my career, or the wasted years, but I can expose the liars.
        Why isn’t perjury taken seriously- they were under oath, but lied over and over again.
        ETs are a joke.

  13. Naomi

    Bias isn’t criminal; it’s part of the human condition. Have a look at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ if you don’t believe that.

    So having had an appeal court find – if you’re a judge – that one of your decisions was vitiated by bias (or an appearance of bias, more often) doesn’t really have anything in common with a criminal conviction. I imagine a lot of successful bias appeals will probably limit the progress of the judge’s future judicial career, but that’s about as far as it goes.

    • Abdul

      That’s a highly lawyery answer, and as such it misses the point. The crucial thing here is not the word “bias” and what it formally means in a dictionary. The use of this word is dictated to us by judges and by the ruling class : they force us to submit an appeal against ‘bias’ when a judge behaves in a certain way. What you try to do, is to transform the discussion into the formal meaning of their word, instead of talking about the reality of what people complain about in the behavior of judges, behaviour which they call, having no choice, ‘bias’. If I want to appeal a judgment, for example, on the grounds that a judge conspired with the Respondents already months before the Hearing to make them win the case (please don’t tell me that these do not happen), I formally appeal under ‘bias’, but actually we talk here about a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. That’s a criminal matter, or at least for most simple folk if they are accused of it. Now what most people mean when they complain about ‘bias’ of an employment judge is : deliberate attempt to cheat and to lie so as to rob the deserving Claimant and to maliciously and dishonestly transfer financial assets and prestige to the Respondents who should have lost. To the simple mind this robbery is, as a minimum, (A) robbery (B) abuse of power, abuse of authority, abuse of position. What I know is that if I work somewhere and be alleged to have done this, it will be a criminal charge, definitely a criminal matter. The vast majority of alleged ‘bias’ exhibited by Employment Judges is not that they simply did not talk nicely to one side, however relevant this may be, but that they actually cheat in their judgment, deliberately, so as to arrive at the opposite result to what by truth, by facts and by evidence the result should have been.
      I therefore believe that your reply failed to answer properly any of my specific ‘starter points’.

      • Douglas

        “Vicious circle” or “an independent judiciary”
        The judiciary are bestowed with immense power and good fortune. The power includes independence from and the control of government and government ministers. In a court it is given that they fearlessly choose from facts or argument to form a judgment. From the judgment only their decisions on points of law are questionable by appeal, the appeal judiciary create precedents and corrupt existing laws that have been laid down by successive government but originate from court proceedings, the independent judiciary are the law. Laws are engineered by and created by lawyers who in turn become the judiciary. You can take a government to the ECHR but not the judiciary, they can do what they like they are accountable only to themselves they are the LAW.

        • Abdul

          Douglas, you are mistaken when you agree with Naomi and Michael that there is no corruption in Employment Tribunal, or that the system is not corrupt. You actually describe corruption, but for some strange reason you think that it should not be called corruption.

          • Douglas

            Abdul
            Lawyers are the LAW; they create laws to suit themselves, being a lawyer then becoming a judge unlike a politician is unbridled power for life. In their eyes they are not corrupt; they play intensive word games way beyond the comprehension of ordinary people. Our point of view as laymen looking from the outside is they are very corrupt. Of course Naomi and Michael say they are not, they would they are part of the “club” and know no different. Unfortunately as it stands the lawyers decide whether there is corruption or not. They have decided there is no corruption, emotionally I may not agree but as a law abiding citizen, I have no choice but to toe the line and agree with them, otherwise I would have to take the LAW into my own hands and then I would end up in prison for disobeying the lawyers.
            The corruption is emotionally heartbreaking to the layman but to a lawyer there is no emotion ni LAW and therefore no corruption..
            On paper (The law and legal precedents) I agree there is no corruption what is in my mind is a very different story.. this contradiction like it has many other people has led me to crippling depression.

  14. Abdul

    Douglas, I do sympathize with your emotional plight. First of all, I feel it myself, deeply. Secondly, while there is psychological help to victims of various crimes, for example : rape, there is no psychological counseling to victims of the criminality and cheating committed by judges. Thirdly, in the great majority of cases victims of crimes are recognized as such, as being victims. But when judges conspire against you to pervert the course of justice and their judgments are full of cheats and lies against you, a lot of people believe that you are the crook and not the other side, despite the fact that truthfully you are the honest side. This is because judges, especially Employment Judges, can perform ‘the perfect crime’ : they can twist, cheat and lie in their judgment at will, thus being free to phrase it so as to milk the maximum possible of making it look like you are a crook or a baddy. In my case I counted what I believe to be tens and tens of different techniques of cheating used by the Employment Judge in the conduct of the Hearing and in writing the Judgment. More than that, the number of what I believe to be individual cheats, lies, breaches of rules and of precedents committed by him in this one case is anywhere between 500 and 1,000, probably nearer to 1,000. I even do not have the comfort of at least believing that my case has established a record for the number of cheats etc by an Employment Judge : knowing now how Employment Judges work, it may well be that some other talented Employment Judges recorded an even higher score.
    You are right about our inability to fight back against Employment Judges who, so we believe, choose to be and are criminals. Hardly anyone is interested in exposing them in public or in investigating the subject. And there are many other forces of corruption positioned against the small citizen who wants justice. It seems that even Naomi and Michael are now a bit unhappy about letting themselves fall into the trap of raising this subject. I am not going to speculate about their motives for jumping into it, but they probably realize now that this subject might be endless, because the enemies of corrupt judges know what hit them and are not going to be easily fobbed off, despite being powerless.
    I believe that Naomi and Michael still owe me a more serious answer to the starter points/questions raised by me, for example : can you give any reference for a Regional Employment Judge declared ‘biased’ by the ETA, and if this has never happened, don’t you think that it is a sign of ETA corruption ? If it did happen, how come Claimants are not notified and how is it that no one knows about it. Please, do reply about Regional Employment Judges only, not a reply about just any Employment Judge.
    I shall add one more question to Naomi and Michael. In my opinion there was one EAT Judgment which gave to honest appellants partial but most important relief from the general corrupt rule that one cannot appeal the findings of facts by all those dishonest, cheating Employment Judges. Why does this Judgment remain unknown ? Why could I not locate it in your book ? (Ok, I agree : it is my interpretation that it was quite so revolutionary, and you may view it differently). If Naomi and Michael do not answer, I shall eventually answer these two questions myself, as long as it remains open for me to write those answers.
    You are mistaken, though, when you say that according to their law Employment Judges are not corrupt. Of course they are : they breach their own laws and rules all the time, and the state’s laws and rules, which is corruption by any definition, including theirs, and they are escaping the consequences through corruption. It is corruption alright even by their definition, unless you go to their private definition, the one that many of them probably are using when talking one to another privately, which may be something like :”Corruption is submitting a claim against our friends from the class of the good, the rich, the powerful, or other personal friends of Employment Judges”.
    Naomi and Michael have warned, if I remember correctly, that one must leave one’s sense of humour at home when going to court. Despite that, here is a joke of mine. It is nothing but a joke, of course :
    Question : What is the legal term used by the Employment Appeal Tribunal to describe an Employment Judge who conspires to pervert the course of justice, actually perverts the course of justice, whose judgments are full of cheats, who commits no end of perjuries, who is a serial liar, who regularly falsifies notes of Hearings, who terrorizes his Claimant victims by dishonestly and maliciously putting on them 100% of costs in 100% of the cases, etc.
    The correct answer : An experienced judge.

    • Anon

      Douglas – It appears that the Judge doing your substantive Hearing had a difficult job, as your case banked on 5-10 minutes of private conversation between you and your manager. He had to prefer one version of events over another.

      • Douglas

        Anon. For me, the employer made the wrong decision constructively dismissing me and ruining my health, family life and career.
        For the judge it was the right decision in support of his paymasters.
        Judge Owen has his £1,000,000 country cottage in Dorset.
        I live off my £32 per week industrial injuries disability benefit.

  15. Abdul

    Naomi and Michael failed to answer me properly. So I shall take them out of their presumed misery and I shall divulge myself the requested information. Everything which I say is what I believe, and I do not blame or accuse anyone.
    (A) Yes, there was one case in which a Regional Employment Judge was declared biased. Here is the Bailii case number : [2004] UKEAT 0947_03_0408, Appeal No. UKEAT/0947/03, at the EAT on 4 August 2004, before HH Judge McMullen. It was an appeal by the original claimant, a policewoman, who claimed against the Chief Constable of the Cambridgeshire Police, the appeal being against a judgment by a Leicester ET chaired by Regional Employment Judge John K. MacMillan.
    (B) Obviously on this day, HH Judge McMullen suffered from a relative attack (relative compared to what people believe to be the usual standard of EAT) of courage and honesty. May be he ate for breakfast something too spicy, may be something which does not agree with the normal physical constitution of EAT judges. It turned him into a half-revolutionary. Here comes the answer to a second question which I asked Naomi and Michael but which they did not reply to. In this judgment, McMullen came with something revolutionary to erode the unassailability of Employment Judges who deliberately cheat about facts. He said that of course we cannot challenge facts declared by an ET. But in order that the facts declared by an ET would be valid and unchallengeable, they must be based on the ET first understanding correctly the evidence. When the ET do not understand the evidence, this is formally bias and an error in law, and those facts cannot stand. My opinion : as most of those Employment Judges who are deemed to be cheating “need to not understand the evidence” in order to cheat and lie about facts, I believe that this Judgment would have been most useful for many appellants – if they only knew about it. But I have to warn everyone : this is my interpretation of this judgment, and I am not a lawyer. ‘Always consult your Solicitor’.
    (C) Was there a concerted effort to conceal this particular judgment of Judge McMullen ? Was it to protect the judge who was declared biased, or was it because other judges, who might be stooges of the Government, did not like the implications, the extra justice which Claimants may get once they start using this precedent ? Or is it both ? Everyone can answer for himself. It is my personal opinion that this judgment should have been among the standard and most famous judgments of the EAT, and should have been well mentioned in all books about Employment Law (yes, I believe that it should have been mentioned also in Blackstone’s Employment Law Practice, but it is not there; obviously I do NOT say that people should rush to sue Oxford UP for the case not being in Blackstone’s when they needed it to be mentioned there : usually it is the big boys who win such legal battles).
    (D) In my opinion, it is unlikely that this judgment of McMullen was ever cancelled by a higher court (of course, not being a lawyer I would not know those things : ‘ask your Solicitor’). However, appellants who may want to use it may face the usual EAT trick : the EAT may claim that the ET did understand the evidence in their case, though to everyone else it may look that they did not. So there is still a long battle ahead for any claimant who wants to challenge declared facts by an ET, but this judgment should help.
    (E) Why did I say in (B) that Judge McMullen was only half-revolutionary on the day ? The Cambridge policewoman accused REJ MacMillan of various aspects of bias in the personal way in which he conducted the Hearings and in his behavior. MacMillan denied these. HH Judge McMullen arrived at the bizarre determination that as it is the word of the Claimant against the word of a judge, he cannot find on these points for the Claimant. This decision came despite the fact that there was on the one hand an honest policewoman who was not found lying, while on the other hand the judge in question was found by him to be anyhow biased. If the reverse situation was before the EAT, surely the Claimant would have not been given this extra-generous benefit of the doubt given by McMullen to REJ MacMillan.

    Naomi and Michael, please do comment about my interpretation of this judgment of Judge McMullen.

  16. Douglas

    To explain my position perhaps another approach is needed, for 3 years during my complete breakdown in relation to grievance and ET proceedings. 2 notable films repeatedly came into my troubled mind.
    The first – The Accused http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accused_(1988_film)
    The second – The Hill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hill_(film)
    I experienced the mental turmoil and frustrations of the characters played by Jodie Foster in the first film and that of Sean Connery in the second.

  17. Abdul

    It seems that Naomi and Michael no longer want to refer to this subject (corruption in the Employment Tribunals). Therefore I shall only repeat my reply to Naomi regarding her reliance on the formal meaning of the word ‘bias’. Let me explain the point through an example. The ruling class could have ordered us to use one of 3 categories as grounds in an appeal, if we want our appeal to succeed : let’s say – Errors in Law, Perversity, and Playing Football (Playing Football would then be their chosen term to cover criminality, perverting the course of justice, dishonesty, deliberate cheating etc etc : that is, what is covered today by their word ‘bias’). Then Naomi would say that Playing Football is not a criminal act but a physical and mental innocent activity, ‘a personal state of body and mind’, nothing to get aggravated about. I repeat my basic position : the word ‘bias’ is a cover up for anything up to the most serious criminality. One has no choice but to use this term.
    Also : when one tries to submit a complaint towards a proper, reliable and credible police-like criminal investigation of an employment judge, one can always rely on the Government to block such an investigation from taking place. However, criminality of judges is criminality even when it is formally called ‘bias’ and even when the Government meticulously arranges that any complaint of criminality against our ‘honest’ judges would not be investigated.
    I still believe that all Employment Judges should be promptly dismissed (as a very minimum) upon being declared ‘biased’. No wonder that they are so much in the news : I believe that many Employment Judges feel that, being Employment Judges, they are ‘untouchable’.
    Finally, I would also call on claimants not to so-readily believe the propaganda that they lost in the ET because they represented themselves or because a family member represented them. All this talk about the ET judges feeling sub-consciously sympathy towards the Respondents because they are represented by the judges’ own kind, solicitors and barristers, is not true. It is yet one more false explanation intended to whitewash the dishonesty and cheating by Employment Judges. But I shall not elaborate on it here, and in any case, ‘always consult your Solicitor’. They would argue that, wouldn’t they ?

    • Michael

      It’s not that we no longer want to refer to the subject. It’s that we’ve said our piece and don’t really have anything to add.

      Our view, based on our experience, is that there is no systematic corruption in the employment tribunal system. You think there is. I’m not sure we’re going to bridge that factual divide.

      As to the definition of bias, I think it’s clear that there is a range of behaviour within bias. If you’re right that there is widespread corruption within the employment judiciary, obviously a lot of them should be sacked. I don’t think anyone would seriously disagree with that. Our point isn’t that such behaviour is okay — it’s that such behaviour isn’t happening.

      At the other end there is is the sort of thing that Naomi has spoken about, subconscious bias or the appearance of bias arising from behaviour at a hearing. I don’t think a single example of any subconscious bias or poor behaviour at a hearing should mean a judge loses their job.

      Firstly, I don’t think that’s fair. Judges are only human and they do sometimes err. To say that any error of this nature means automatic dismissal, I think, is too much.

      Second, I don’t think it would help parties alleging bias. If an appeal court knew that a finding of bias would result in the judge involved being dismissed, they’d be too inclined to hesitate before making such a finding.

      • Douglas

        “Our view, based on our experience, is that there is no systematic corruption in the employment tribunal system. You think there is. I’m not sure we’re going to bridge that factual divide.”
        I have already agreed there is no corruption, Abdul needs persuading.
        “As to the definition of bias, I think it’s clear that there is a range of behaviour within bias. If you’re right that there is widespread corruption within the employment judiciary, obviously a lot of them should be sacked. I don’t think anyone would seriously disagree with that. Our point isn’t that such behaviour is okay — it’s that such behaviour isn’t happening.”
        It would be very hard indeed to find corruption within the judiciary they would have to find themselves corrupt. The rules and case law are terribly biased, the system is at fault and not fit for purpose.
        “At the other end there is is the sort of thing that Naomi has spoken about, subconscious bias or the appearance of bias arising from behaviour at a hearing. I don’t think a single example of any subconscious bias or poor behaviour at a hearing should mean a judge loses their job.”
        Employees bring complaints to the tribunal for single acts of alleged poor conduct. Case history leads the judge to have no choice but to rule in support of the respondents. I quote my cases where many times my simple requests were refused point blank. Should I have lost my job? The judge does not work in a shop on a basic wage where a till error can result in the sack. A judge is paid an extremely luxurious salary to get it right and so they should.
        “Firstly, I don’t think that’s fair. Judges are only human and they do sometimes err. To say that any error of this nature means automatic dismissal, I think, is too much.”
        Many people lose their jobs because of human nature and the judiciary will endorse the bullying behaviour of the employer.
        “Second, I don’t think it would help parties alleging bias. If an appeal court knew that a finding of bias would result in the judge involved being dismissed, they’d be too inclined to hesitate before making such a finding.”
        Basically an employer can be bias to his mangers many of who should lose their jobs but do not! The same rules of human nature are part and parcel of the judiciary (birds of a feather flock together) and what you say Michael is that bias is a taboo subject in any court and from my experience so too are bullying and depression, mention these subjects and you will be squashed.

  18. Abdul

    Douglas has written a very competent response. The points raised by him are very valid : if anyone disagrees with him, it calls for a serious reply. I shall add a few notes of my own to his ones. The reason why every time a reply has to be very long is because the supporters of the existing order can simply say “There is no corruption”, and it falls to us to describe, to prove, to explain. While obviously I cannot disclose here proofs, in view of my complaint to the SFO about criminality of various Employment Judges, it still has to be long. Those who professionally cannot afford to believe that there is corruption in ETs may not read it anyhow, and others hopefully will find that I add something.
    (1) Michael, Yes, we shall not agree on this. I see corruption everywhere within the ETs. I must repeat here how my opinion differs than Douglas’s. You and he see plenty of mistakes, wrong decisions, ‘bias’ as per your very narrow definition, and you say these are only mistakes, just human nature, simply ‘bias’ in the more innocent sense, presumably you secretly add to yourself as an explanation of a judgment ‘Not a very brilliant IQ in this judge’. Douglas thinks that as the ruling class, including judges, made the rules for themselves, almost by definition all cheating and corruption is formally within their rules, so formally there cannot be corruption, everything is formally according to the existing rules. I reject your opinion, Michael, and Douglas’s. I am looking at the reality on the one hand without rose-tinted glasses and on the other hand without the fear or the need to call the facts in any other name. Therefore I say :
    (A) Quantity is quality. First of all, for example, it cannot be that in just one case some 500 to 1000 instances of cheating and lies by the judge would be anything but corruption. In the system as a whole, when you talk to claimants and they tell you how the judges cheated them, you think that such quantity of cases in which judicial cheating is strongly alleged cannot be anything but corruption.
    (B) You are going to say :’Ah, but who said that all these accusations are right, that there was cheating as claimed by you and by others ? People who lose a case tend to think that they were cheated because it is human nature not to be able to accept defeat”. First thing is, are thousands of people wrong ? Secondly, if it is not corruption, why are the Government frustrating my call for a Leveson-like Public Enquiry into alleged corruption in the ET system, and why do they frustrate my request that the SFO will investigate my specific complaint ? After all, I went a long way to accommodate the Government on this. For a long time I made a suggestion that they should establish a National, Centralized, Independent, Specialized Police Unit dedicated specifically to investigating corruption, criminality and wrong-doing by judges, because submitting complaints to local police forces is waste of time (for many reasons). As the Government refused, I went towards them by submitting a very detailed complaint to the SFO as the next best thing, but still they would not investigate it. They have something to hide.
    (C) Even by their own rules all this deliberate cheating is corruption. People confuse between (i) “They write the rules and therefore they write rules which transform corruption into not being corruption ; their rules make corruption formally be ‘kosher’ “; and (ii) Even by their rules all this easily amounts to corruption. However, fraudulently and deceitfully all those whose job is to judge or supervise the judges claim that it is not corruption when in fact it is, it is corruption fair and square also by their rules. They cheat like that because they have the power to cheat. So time and again they make totally false, fraudulent, corrupt determinations saying that the judgments and conduct of hearing by the judges in question simply do not fit the existing legal definitions of corruption, when the truth is that they do. I believe that (ii) reflects the UK situation.
    (2) I just want to emphasize that all this alleged corruption is neither unique to Britain nor is it unique inside Britain to the ETs. I accept that in all countries there will be quite a few judges who are corrupt and dishonest. In Britain, there are a number of dishonest judges in the Family Courts, in the County Courts, among the magistrates, etc. But the situation in the ETs is easily the worst. There are good reasons for that, but I shall not elaborate on them here.
    (3) Of course, when we discuss the alleged massive corruption in the ET system, we need to supply a working definition of corruption. Michael asserts that in ET judgments there are plenty of mistakes, catastrophic to claimants but made in innocence. I suggest that we ask “Why did these mistakes happen ?”. I suggest further that there can be 3 types of answer, and that Invariably you will find “corruption” as the decisive element in every type of answer. :
    (i) The ET made its ‘mistakes’ for untoward reasons, for reasons which are universally considered corruption, that is : because of the financial or ‘positional’ interests of the judge (that if he cheats in favour of an important person or of a state institution, this judge will be promoted), or because the judge is friends with the Respondents (into this category falls the deliberate insertion into a tribunal of someone who is in fact part of the system of the Respondents, which I believe to be a British practice, fairly widespread, a practice regarding which the EAT and our courts which are higher than the EAT show amazing ingenuity and creativeness in their efforts of cover-up and whitewash). I believe that everyone will admit that this category represents corruption, and even the laws, rules and regulations of the UK would admit that this is corruption. This can and should be viewed as ‘organized crime’. By the way, this type of criminality involves usually a number of judges : one would cheat at the CMD, another at the PHR, a third one in the Hearing : all pre-planned. The ‘organized crime’ label would involve normally the Government, who would try to prevent any proper police investigation (unless done by what I believe to be a corrupt local police force who will be in cahoots with the corrupt judges and the Government to kill any complaint or investigation). Incidentally, many times this ‘organized crime conspiracy’ would involve just as well the solicitors/barristers of the Respondents.
    (ii) A judge who frequently cheats on purpose as an ego trip, ‘because he can’, to feel himself big. May be he wants to prove to himself that he can commit a ‘perfect crime’ and get away with it (the system makes it easy, very easy). This is corruption because the system, with the encouragement of the Government, knowingly allows them to continue forever and a day. The British Government loves these judges. The old boys network within the judiciary helps them remain in place whatever they do. I believe that many influential British judges will see massive cheating by their chum as ‘eccentricity’, not as criminality, and that any solicitor or barrister who dares scream about ‘corruption’ in the Employment Tribunals is somehow very likely to lose his next 1000 cases in court. Incidentally, similar to (i) above, this type of ET corruption usually involves also terrorism against the victims, in the shape of the criminals (the judges) slapping massive costs on the honest claimants as a weapon to terrorize them with. In preparation for this terrorism, this type of employment judge always finds against the honest claimant on every single point : even if the claimant brings 50 separate and well-substantiated accusations against the respondent, this Harold Shipman type of judge will reject every single one of them. Sometimes it is so difficult for him to find ways of rejecting accusations against the respondent made by the claimant, that this judge needs to resort – on wholesale scale – to two basic techniques of cheating : ‘forgetting’ the arguments of the Claimant, which will not be mentioned at all in the judgment (out of 100 main arguments this judge will only mention 5 in his judgments, those are the only 5 that he thinks that he can twist and cheat about successfully), while his other basic cheating technique is to come with the most outrageous and ridiculous lies, so absurd that people like me say :’Only British judges cheat like that ; no judge in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Iran would dream of promulgating such absurd lies’. In fact, the Harold Shipman type of Employment Judge may employ in his conduct of just one hearing and in his judgment in this one case tens and tens of different techniques of cheating. Of course, a judge who belongs to this Harold Shipman category may well belong also to the previous category, these categories are not mutually exclusive.
    (iii) Then we have those judges who make those allegedly ‘honest’ mistakes, due to low IQ or being twats or because they fancy more the solicitor who represents the respondents, or because of some conscious or sub-conscious bias of one type or another, etc. Here Naomi and Michael might have claimed that innocent mistakes like these do not amount to corruption. They do, for two reasons : first, because the system is deliberately positioned to try to prevent correction of such mistakes, and secondly, because there is nothing in the system to prevent this judge from making more mistakes. I have no doubt that any serious research would discover that with time those judges who make a supposedly ‘innocent’ mistake do tend to make plenty of these, without much of a second thought, and they do not care (or else they move to doing their ‘mistakes’ very deliberately, they develop and progress into becoming the (ii) type). Douglas have expressed admirably the chasm between the treatment and the eventual fate of an employee who makes an innocent mistake, as compared to a judge who either makes an innocent mistake or cheats on purpose.
    (4) It is an added point of possible or alleged corruption, how do they manage to find those trade union representatives who sit as lay members of tribunals : they seem almost always to support the cheating of their fellow workers. This scandal of the ‘workers representatives’ calls for a serious public enquiry, and sometimes for a police enquiry.
    (5) A public enquiry should take place to find the truth about the situation in the ETs, therefore the simple men from the street, like Douglas or me, should be the main witnesses : each of us knows his case well and can try to explain how (and why) he was cheated. The public enquiry should not be a procession of lawyers who testify according to what is in their financial and job-promotion interests to testify.
    (6) I leave out any comprehensive discussion of alleged EAT corruption.
    (7) Finally, I want to emphasize that I accept that all this talk about ‘corruption’ is only what I believe. More than that, it is out of this admission that I call for SFO investigation and for a public enquiry. Let better people than me investigate the actual facts behind words like ‘corruption’ and come with their well-substantiated verdict.
    (8) Without any connection to all that was said above, and not as a part of any accusation, but as a potential help to claimants who want to appeal (‘Always consult your solicitor’, which I am not), I advise reading the following EAT judgment : Bailii case number : [2004] UKEAT 0947_03_0408, Appeal No. UKEAT/0947/03, at the EAT on 4 August 2004, before HH Judge McMullen (in which a then Regional Employment Judge, John Kenneth MacMillan, now using the title ‘Employment Judge MacMillan’, has been declared ‘biased’). He did attract a few adverse comments over the years, some of which are on the internet.

    • Loy

      One BBC Journalist I met at the Royal Courts of Justice told me that there is an unwritten rule for them not to give ANY attention to judicial corruption unless first published elsewhere and generating interest.

      I agree with you that there is extreme judicial corruption taking place at the ET and EAT. It is also an unwritten rule that Barristers should not run any case involving Judicial Corruption and Judicial Bias except it involves them personally in which case it is optional.

      These are some definitions of Judicial Corruption extracted elsewhere:

      1. “Judicial corruption is usually aimed at distorting justice by perverting the evidence and the decisions; it violates the principle of legality and it amounts to a gross abuse and misuse of judicial power.”

      2. “Judicial corruption may involve no bribery or advantage but may be judicial conduct reflected in the delivery of perverse judgment based on grotesque and distorted assessment of fact and law in order to placate some one or a spurious motive. This strikes at the very root on a judge’s integrity.”

      3. “That corruption has nothing to do with money. His judgment is flawed. Justice is tarnished.” The Lord Judge (former CJ of England & Wales).

  19. Douglas

    With the already implemented fees and now the new laws that have just come into force.
    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26908608
    The employment tribunal is now even more inaccessible pointless than before. Government has realised the futility of the system which leaves employers and employees with a very nasty taste and lawyers and judges with bulging wallets.
    The even more worrying aspect of the continued erosion of employee rights is the involvement of the mystery force ACAS. From MY experience this organisation was as much use as a brick and tile hang-glider.

    • Pete

      Agree my numerous phone calls to ACAS have generally come off knowing no more or even less than what I initially called them about.

  20. Douglas

    As I have said previously in this post the tribunal is not corrupt but pointless and unfit for purpose.

    The process is a toothless legally driven quango, driven by an unaccountable independent authority be it the judge or the lawyers who take part.

  21. Douglas

    On the BOOK

    The book by Naomi & Michael is an excellent companion if you do feel desperate enough to pursue a claim through the employment tribunal it is worth every penny. However the book is a good read, very honest and optimistic you will read it and think “how can the opposition get away with this” unfortunately in the reality of the tribunal court room both honesty and optimism have no place an individual has no merit whatsoever or no prospect of a reasonable success, bullying and brutally cruel was my experienced, and yes they got away with it…easily..

    • Abdul

      Douglas, I myself used this book when preparing and conducting my case. It is a very good book, but of course it is weak on certain aspects of the true situation, the real life situation, in Employment Tribunals. For example, it has nothing about Employment Judges already months before the Hearing conspiring with the solicitor of the Respondenta about what judgment to issue and how to stitch up the Claimant ; it has nothing about the possibly-psychopaths, those Employment Judges who love cheating so as to put full costs on Claimants in about 100% of certain types of cases in front of them ; it has nothing about the sometimes complicated manoeuvring and cheating by the corrupt, cheating Employment Judges in the ET local gang so as to appoint as a lay member of the ET someone who is in fact part of the Respondents ; and so on. It would have helped me and others enormously if it made a full reference to the case highlighted by me above, the one in which Regional Employment Judge MacMillan was found to be a biased judge in a very important judgment of HH Judge McMullen. Therefore I would say that while the book is very helpful, it has some very serious ‘holes’ in its treatment of the real world of the ETs, particularly in all that relates to criminality, corruption, dishonesty, forging and fabricating of notes by employment judges, etc.

      • Douglas

        Abdul.
        I think we are in agreement for different reasons, I see how the tribunal failed on my case and a lot of institutional bias that I could easily interpret in the same manner as you, at first I did. I could not believe it.

        You say it is corrupt

        I say it is not fit for purpose or incompetent – there are too many mistakes and victims

        Subtly different

        Whether or not the difference is the result of corruption for me that is another debate and requires a full investigation which is what you have asked for I think you are one step ahead of me on that one..

        The judges make too many bad or easy assumptions they are lazy and careless what they base these on is generally the employers version of events.

        In my case at the EAT Judge Singh assumed that Judge Harper was a man and his judgment reflected that fact.. very incompetent… Judge Harper is a woman. After I complained of this fact and asking for a review of the Judgment low and behold the only part changed in the amended Judgment was the sexuality of Judge Harper, totally in contravention of the rules.

        You can see these judgments here… http://www.slideshare.net/D0u9l45/tag/judge-singh

        This is a very fine example of prejudice and false assumption or total incompetence not corruption.

          • Abdul

            Repeat offenders. Only a public enquiry into the corruption of the Employment Tribunal system can help. It cannot be done by appeals within the court system : judges protect judges. There is no true mechanism to complain about dishonesty of judges : Parliament and Governments took care to put judges above the law. We need public enquiry into their corruption and dishonesty.

  22. Lee

    I agree with much of what has been said.
    I feel very let down, disappointed and distressed by the system.
    I was recently sacked for a ‘breakdown of relationship’ with my line manager.
    We had a poor working relationship in which he had criticised my performance and I had complained about bullying.
    I was shocked that they suddenly decided to use ‘breakdown of relationship’ as a reason for dismissal. Apparently it comes under the ‘SOSR’ category of dismissals so the employer doesn’t have to follow any contractual procedure: it’s a much faster way of getting rid of someone even than gross misconduct.
    It was a gruelling hearing in which the employer – a quango -had a barrister and I had to represent myself. Even so I think the employer side came across very badly in the hearing.
    When the judgment came it was a complete shock. The judge was highly selective in the reporting of the facts and people who had attended said that it was difficult to believe it was the same case.
    The employer was judged to have had a fair reason for dismissal (SOSR), to have acted reasonably and the case was dismissed.
    For me there are two issues from this experience:
    (1) The inequality of arms and imbalance of power issue.
    (2) The lack of clarity in the law: Is it really the case that you can sack someone for a breakdown of relationship?
    I would seriously warn anyone who feels stressed and bullied by their employer NOT to go to an employment tribunal. Workplace bullying is difficult to cope with at the best of times but an ET hearing might tip you over the edge.

    • Mark Eaves

      Your account makes for disturbing reading. There are similarities with my own experience, and so I’d like to offer a few comments.
      SOSR dismissals are very rare indeed. It has been established in cases that personality clash can be SOSR, but it seems to me that the cases involve senior people. Their seniority is such that the problem has a significant adverse effect on the business, and it is practically impossible to resolve the problem.
      It is well known that employees who complain of bullying are routinely eliminated. I have discovered that some HR Primitives believe that any dismissal can be rendered fair, by simply asserting in the dismissal letter that there has been a ‘ breakdown in the employment relationship’. This is not legally correct, of course.
      You say the tribunal’s judgment was so selective in the reporting of facts that people could not believe it was about your case. It may be significant that you were employed by a quango. I suspect the tribunal may have been determined not to find against the employer, regardless. As I have explained elsewhere on this website, I have found out for certain that this sort of thing definitely goes on.
      You are by no means the only one who has found that tribunals are not good at dealing with cases of bullying, and some of us would add that the litigation process itself provides abusive employers with opportunities to do their worst. Even when the tribunal is determined to be fair and open -minded [ which I still believe most of them are ], there are formidable obstacles to them getting a right understanding of what was going on. In my own case, the bullying behaviour was utterly blatant and evidenced by contemporary documents. But in my case, as in your case, the tribunal ignored all that, and said the employer had ‘acted reasonably’.

    • libby

      Lee, I have to agree that after many years of being systematically bullied and threatened by my employer, what I experienced at the hands of the ET very nearly sent me over the edge. And everyone who knows me considers me an incredibly strong person.
      I would never put myself through that again – which is presumably the reason the ET is as it is – to put the employees off complaining.
      But it has also put me off anything to do with the legal profession.
      Many years ago I did Jury duty – well I would never be able to do that again. I would be throwing up for England just being in the same room as Barristers and Judges.
      I am feeling physically ill just thinking about it.

  23. jack

    Having read the replies re the original question ” is the tribunal system corrupt ” , I am led to believe there is a lot of good advice for the potential claimant within the replies . I would be intrigued to know what the potential result of a claim for unfair dismissal would / could be if . A employee takes a employer to a employment tribunal and is found to have not been fired or have resigned , he/she is still a employee and both parties are advised to sort the problem , but the employer then appeals by claiming the ET Judge was biased towards the claimant and that the judge was also flippant towards the employers solicitor during the employment tribunal , and also claim the employee/claimant has failed to attempt to resolve the situation , even though the employee/claimant has , and has evidence to prove they have . My very limited understanding of EAT rules leads me to believe that the employer can only appeal on a point of law , and may not include any new evidence or refer to claims made by the employer during the original employment tribunal that were proven to be untrue , eg an employee was aggressive towards a manager , the employee was found not guilty . During the EAT the ET judge was found guilty of being flippant , but not biased . The EAT judge was said to be fair , polite etc during the tribunal to both the claimant and the appelants council . After his summing up ? the judge stood up and left the courtroom , the claimant and appellant remained seated , and seemed confused to what had just happened , the claimant asked the registrar what had just happened , and was informed that ” they the appellant had won , but the claimant can appeal . The former is just a fictional scenario , and as far as I am aware has never happened , but I suppose I could given the info contained in the posts .

  24. David Richards

    I don’t believe corruption is an issue. I sat as an ET member for 5 years and there was never a hint of it. Where the system does fail is that Claimants will not normally be able to produce corroborative witnesses (all too scared for their own jobs) while the employer can produce a long trail of lawyers and senior managers (all well-briefed) and extend the proceedings for days. Should it come down to a costs application (admittedly rarely granted) the Claimant can effectively be bullied out of the case by the prospect of significant financial loss.

    DTR

      • Jabon

        Douglas your so full of BS. That is systematic bullying through a corrupted system. Employers should only produce lawyers equivalent to the corroborative witnesses a claimant can make. Otherwise you’re basically saying that Money rules and the highest bidder wins.

        • Douglas

          Jabon
          I may well be full of BS legal BS..
          The tribunal or its employees are not corrupt. They cannot be they make no decisions. The corruption is in the legal profession, taking all of us for mugs. As you say the highest bidder wins that is how civil law works, it is gambling. Lawyers are professional gamblers who only back winners. No win no fee. No win no case!!!!

      • Abdul

        To David Richards. If you did not see it, may be there was no corruption in your particular tribunal, but then of course we need to enquire less with you and more with the Claimants. And may be you were deliberately put to less ‘sensitive’ (for the elite) cases, as potentially the REJ might have secretly earmarked you as “honest, to be used only for unimportant cases”. I have given in my previous comments as much information as I think possible without giving the corrupt judiciary a formal reason to quash a ‘guilty’ verdict by a jury on those judges (if it ever comes to it). However, I have done my research and I have no doubt, and enough proofs, that the Employment Tribunal system is corrupt from top to bottom. If you read my previous e-mails, you will find in them enough concrete evidence or as near as I thought would be acceptable to give. If I am wrong, why do you think the Serious Fraud Office refuses even to acknowledge receipt of my complaints, which include very serious accusations ? The ET corruption is massive.

      • Abdul

        Systematic bullying or systemic bullying is corruption, but there are also other aspects of corruption : just because they did not happen to you it does not mean that they do not happen. When people see corruption but try to give it other names they simply play into the hands of the corrupt establishment of the Employment Tribunals.

    • Loy

      DTR, Perhaps you were not assigned to cases that were flagged up as strong. I expected every rational being to insist that the ET be made to allow recordings. One of the most corrupt judges, known as pro-employer, was made a Lord Justice last year.

      • Abdul

        To Loy. May be there are one or two tribunals which allow recordings, but the vast majority do not. I believe that this is in order to enable the tribunals and the privileged and powerful to cheat. The same applies to this refusal to allow the use of lie detectors. The corrupt establishment has succeeded in giving them bad name. In fact they are much more reliable than the cheats and lies of our Employment Judges. The reason why they are ‘not acceptable’ is that through them one can catch the judges (and the police, politicians etc) in their lies and corruption.

  25. Lee Dumpleton

    There is no doubt the Tribunal system is rotten to the core. I was ordered by two different employment judges on three occasions to send three years of my bank and mortgage statements to my ex-employer, as well as every job application and every reply in that period. This is illegal and the documents had absolutely nothing to do with the case. When I refused to comply, I was told my case would be struck out. I still reused to comply and suddenly my case was ‘re-instated’ at the last minute with no explanation. At the Hearing, however, I was bullied mercilessly by employment judge O’Rourke. I had been fleeced by a succession of solicitors (most solicitors appear to be crooks) and had run out of money so had to represent myself. When I asked a question, the employment judge shouted at me: “Can’t you get it into your head!” When I cam to give my evidence, he would not let me present it and I just had to9 give up in the third morning of what should have been a five-day Hearing. he then made two awards of £10,000 costs against me. These are just three of his reasons. 1. I had not supplied a doctor’s letter with evidence of my illness. In fact, I had supplied two letters and they were in the evidence. No-one has denied they are in the evidence but I still have to pay £10,000 for not supplying them, even though I did! Presumably this makes sense in legal circles! 2. Long before my case, someone had sent an anonymous letter about my employer to a local paper. Mr O’ Rourke decided that I had sent this and ordered me to pay £10,000! 3. The supposed impartial employer’s investigator into my case had been sending hate mail about me to colleagues and witnesses. I obtained these e-mails. Mr O’Rourke said it was okay, because she was no sorry that she had sent them. I am a Christian and had sent her a personal note of forgiveness, signing off the letter, “God bless you and your family.” Mr O’Rourke said that writing “God bless you and your family” was obviously a way of threatening her and her family and used this as evidence for awarding £10,000 against me. I did not have enough money to pay the £20,000 and almost lost my house before, fortuitously, I managed to raise the funds, although it has left me in serious debt and the bank is still threatening to re-possess my house. And this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the intimidation I received. My employer was supported all the way. They were even given a 10-day extension to submit their ET3. When they missed this deadline by three days, they were still told it did not matter at a hearing at which I lost £1,500 hiring a barrister who hardly said a word. President of the Tribunals, David Latham, and Sir John Brigstock have supported all this and have said I have nothing to complain about. Tribunals not corrupt! You must be joking. NEVER go to an employment Tribunal and NEVER waste your money on solicitors. Oh – and why did I lose my job? As operational headteacher, I had phoned the Police when a 13-year-old girl at my school in Luton was raped, whereas the LA wanted to brush it under the carpet. Also, a senior teacher was repeatedly exposing his naked body to children at the school. I tried to stop this but it turned out that the teacher was a friend of the senior officer at the LA who sacked me for curtailing the teacher’s rights, (to abuse children, presumably). After I had been sacked, the teacher was suspended but allowed to move on, without sanction, to work with more vulnerable children.

    • Abdul

      Lee Dumpleton, your case is very typical to the massive corruption within the employment tribunals (indeed from top to bottom) as well as within local authorities. All this corruption is sanctioned and bolstered by all political parties, so for those suffering from the criminality and corruption of Employment Judges there is no one to turn to. The trade unions are part of the corruption mechanism, I believe. I completely sympathize with you in your predicament.
      In the short run, we need a full public enquiry into the criminality, corruption and dishonesty within the Employment Tribunals. In the longer run, we need to establish a Centralized, National, Specialized, Independent police unit to investigate the criminality, corruption, and dishonesty of Employment Judges and of Judges in other courts. In your case submitting a complaint to the local police against their paymasters, the local authority, is useless for many reasons. We need an independent unit as suggested by me. This unit will be very busy, in view of the mountains of alleged corruption among Britain’s judges.

  26. Hermione

    My husband went the tribunal route several years ago. We were insured so had the benefit of a solicitor and Barrister representation at a 3 day hearing. M ost of the donkey work was done by us, our telephone liaisons with the appointed solicitor rarely resulted in any actions on him. The respondents solicitors threatened us with photocopying costs and other admin charges and suggested my husband may have his tax affairs investigated. The case was adjourned again and again because the CEO was busy . At the hearing he simply didnt appear. The barrister was brilliant, every lie was exposed including some we hadnt even thought of. One witness refused to lie under oath and named the person who had altered my husbands documents in order to conceal financial mis -reporting, it was the CEO himself. The HR director who had left the company in the interim was also helpful in admitting lies told under management instructions. My husband spent 3 days in a travel lodge with a suitcase reserved for documents. The judgement was received 15 months after the ET1 had been submitted. The judge said it had been such a long time since he had heard the case he could not recall the evidence given under cross examination so would rely instead on the original statements in the bundle as everyones recollections would have been fresher. The judgement was riddled with typing and formating errors . He found in favour of the respondents, we did not appeal. My uninsured non -unionised neice in a part time job on minimum wage has been blatantly bullied by two line managers. She is off sick and has had her sick pay suspended because she is ‘undergoing difficulties’ A decision upheld on appeal by the manager of the entire organisation. A letter alleging her shortcomings includes a piece of paper she was forced to construct list her ‘faults’ which was then passed around all her colleagues to read and sign so that everyone would know what she would need to improve upon-this is her employers interpretation of setting objectives. Needless to say she is involved in one of the caring professions. What is shown is that the organisation has no fear of Employment Tribunals. I am concentrating my efforts on finding her a new job before her confidence is totally destroyed..

  27. Joe Sweetinburgh

    The Employment Tribunal system is an extremely weak one which in practice now seeks to pit employer against employee by forcing settlement prior to hearings by means of low or negligible awards to the employee whilst leaving the burden of irrecoverable costs to the employer. The majority of cases will in fact be employee against employee. From an International Lawyer’s perspective the system
    which is an intentionally reference to being better qualified than certain individuals who seem to take petty exception to that fact, the system completely fails to meet minimum standards of justice – for example
    ( a ) Disclosure is not enforced or actually avoided to maximize the discretion to decide cases and avoid appellate review of decisions ( b ) applications for mechanical recordings of hearings are denied for the sames reasons in order can repeats it decision by way of it own review
    ( c ) lay members objections are overridden ( d ) chairs fail to recuse themselves when they have a close connection to a case from their practice notwithstanding unconscious bias for as partners they represent employers as opposed to employees and more often than not are employers by reason of being partners in firms ( f ) the frequency of reported appeals illustrates an inability to properly assess and determine cases on a consistent and frequent basis ( g ) the refusal of Tribunal’s to make corrective Orders of its own Motion or simple Fast Track to EAT to avoid appeals brings the process into disrepute – most Chairs are quite happy to overrule or ignore the decision of the previous hearings Chair ( h ) an unreported practice of ready access to discuss cases without the other party being aware or told appears to be commonplace with professional representatives ( i ) parties are not permitted to develop their case via cross examination of witness not only because of the administrative practice of reading witnesses statements which will in most cases be effectively tailored by professional representatives as opposed to real statements in the witnesses own words – but also due to the fact that witness summons provisions have been withdrawn ( j ) the absence of any post hearing jurisdiction to impose sanctions for contempt or misleading a Tribunal is readily known unlike the Witness Immunity rule but still leads to the inevitable and unbelievable ( k ) the unwillingness of Regional Judges to disclose to JACO the robustness of their questioning and elicited responses on complaint and investigation of Employment Law Judges, which in its totality, renders the whole system a discreditable lottery for either side for they will be dependent upon the personality presiding. Tribunals are no more and no less, bodies occupied by lawyers who neither foresaw that the abuse of the legal aid system within the profession would result in ultimate withdrawl of legal aid and the closure of law firms. They are now repeating the same mistakes with Tribunals and leading Tribunals to self destruction as shortly no one will use them And as people understand that there is little chance of prosecuting a complaint which is more or less the intention of government in order to reduce numbers and costs whilst pretending to listen to employers and employees concerns alike, firms will be undermined because people will find others ways, uncontrolled and not properly thought through to damage those who they feel have damaged them. You can also find when a case has no Press or Public present, Chairs often show traits of practice, being extremely rude, leaving off the record relevant admissions, singular findings, dispensing and overruling their brother judges pre-case decisions, accompanied by all too often ambitious salaried female lawyers motivated by ego, bonus and the fear of losing to litigants in person, not to mention the reinforced glass ceiling for female lawyers, playing extreme hard ball with claimants that if done to them would have them crying, as well claiming foul. You only have to compare a Tribunal with the standards of a Crown Court which is still, just about populated by lawyers and which has the benefit of the recording systems that provides inescapable review as opposed to selective notes. I have to confess to being slightly bias by reason of being given a 7 day adjournment to bury my infant son, which still seems to me to be deplorable and indicative of the quality of the system. There is some good news as there is some talent within the system, however
    it more or less needs the an old style District Judge who is not committed to personal advancement as opposed to a desire to serve, questioning applicants to fix in their own minds based on a wider knowledge of people and communities the weight that and an integrity that a case has. Unfortunately the overall performance, background and ambition of those sitting in Tribunal is extremely questionable – and the proof of that – is no more and no less – the widespread dissatisfaction and suspicion of a system which such pensioned participants manage, yet have neither changed or adapted for the better. A close examination of the statistics of the acquittals before the Nazi’s People Court against the rates of success in Tribunal highlights that the laws being applied have a specific purpose and almost pre-determine the result. The ratio is generally that you can have a hearing – but you will be punished for it, although at the end of the day, so were the Judges who allowed the German system to decay.

    Either the system or or my own good self shall be a corpse before the penny drops, that the problem in fact lies. more with those who are withing the system than those who appear before it.

    • Abdul

      Joe Sweetinburgh, yours is an excellent comment. I could have added quite a lot of points about the criminality and corruption of Employment Judges, despite being just a litigant in person who has done his research about the ETs and EAT, but I still do not want to jeopardize the complaint which I have submitted to the Serious Fraud Office against various Employment Judges, alleging various acts of criminality and of organized crime ring. Obviously the SFO tries to avoid even acknowledging receipt of the complaint. Dominic Grieve now pretends to be a champion of human rights, but he was in charge of the SFO for very long months since they received my complaint for the first time, and I believe that it is not to unfair to suspect that he might have ordered the SFO not to investigate my complaint.

      • Joe Sweetinburgh

        I think my point would be, that the system has been ” corrupted ” by a practice where Decisions are not being written properly. The summing up in a Crown Court trial will set out all the evidence – for and against – and identify any issues, without coming to judgment. It is a method that requires balance and discipline from the Judge and is open to scrutiny and challenge. The judge of fact is the Jury and the Judge directs the Jury as to the Law. As proceedings are electronically recorded there is little or no room for a Judge to be creative. It is clear that although Tribunals operate under a different procedure, some of the ” Judges ” previously known as ” Chairpersons ” have departed from rendering decisions on the basis of balance and the universal principles of legal reporting. The task of writing a Decision is requires conscious and consistent effort. I can point to atleast 2 cases where Decisions have been written up with all the features of a well considered decision but in reality the Written Decision presented has been a carefully edited account where key evidence and issues, that ought to have determined a hearing fairly, have been edited out. There is little doubt that the missing elements have been intentionally edited out to prevent appeals. Unlike the Regional Judge in Bristol – 99% of lawyers would agree with me that complaint is not merely a Procedural Matter or where a complainant has to follow a Procedural route of Appeal. It is perfectly proper to complain on the basis of Misconduct and or Extra Judicial Error. In some cases the editing goes much further and is therefore objectionable at Common Law. Hence the prospects of a successful Appeal or any assessment of lodging Appeal by lawyers who might otherwise take a case to appeal, fail at the first hurdle. For all intents and purposes the Decision looks to be well decided, and it would be idle not to think that is the purpose in the presentation when writing up the decision. Remember, the Decision is also given the status of a record of the Evidence. The Appellate body cannot overrule findings of fact.

        I prefer ” corruption ” of the process rather than ” corruption ” by –
        individuals. I prefer the idea of complaints running along the lines of failures to observe the terms the of Judicial Oath and the undertaking within the Oath that incorporates the duty to perform duties without ” fear or favour “.

        Those who are most likely to be subjected to this practice, are Litigants in Person. However the test of ” watch how they treat others for that is how they will treat you ” still applies. Employers may be subject to the same process. It would be a fairly dangerous practice to employ where a lawyer is presenting a case, for it then becomes a trial of 2 or more records of a hearing, if the lawyer has the guts to challenge the record. Those charged with oversight of the system can be given some latitude, as it is a shocking revelation that such a practice exists. It is not really within the realms of the ordinary British ” lawyers imagination “, be they Barristers, Judges, Students, Academics etc that the most basic tool of their tools – Law Reports and Decisions – are being contaminated. Hence there has been no real study of the empirical evidence of first hand accounts that we know of. It may well be another ” Saville ” situation where complaints have been buried ? It is going to be costly and expensive to remedy
        but heads ought to start rolling ! The age old tradition of invitation to tender resignations should be encouraged. Misplaced notions of professional loyalty and comity, make it unlikely that there will be an
        ” open ” or speedy public resolution otherwise. Victims will be denied compensation and some victims will not even know that they have been subjected to this process although they will be suffering from or embittered by the result of the case. To diagnose the practice, one has to be present at the hearing and know how a decision should be properly written.

        It is certainly not necessary to prove personal corruption and it is certainly not necessary to think that Appeal time limits prevent compensation or remedy. It is however, necessary that the Lord Chancellor takes a Hillsborough Inquiry approach, to identify the extent of such practices for the Lord Chancellor has the power to grant compensation and avoid Common Law compensation claims. At stake is the integrity of the system and the manner in which Regional Judges have appeared to obstruct the proper investigation by JACO. It is totally inappropriate for those at Regional Judge level of higher to participate in a practice were complaints are dismissed by Regional Judges claiming Judicial Privilege to prevent the most basic disclosure and explanation relating to the investigation of complaints. There could be no clearer admission of Guilt by resorting to silence to avoid explaining absurd results and conduct

        Today it was suggested to me that Employment Law is a good area of practice where much good can be done ! I take a different view. In
        its current form the Employment Tribunal system has been reduced to a hollow shell. There are stark parallels with the process employed by the Nazi’s for the Nazification of Judicial Systems before and during the War, where there is the form and appearance of Justice but little or no justice delivered. Even if acquitted the citizen will be rearrested for being successful. The only ways to counter the corruption of the process and protect litigants, the professions, economy and society, is for the Lord Chancellor to take urgent steps to independently investigate the extent of the problem aided by people such as contributors here who have the guts to recount their experiences. In the meantime the recording equipment needs to be put into the Tribunals and switched on. Lawyers need to address the issue directly and candidly as has been the case when opposing the repeal or replacement of the Human Rights Act.

        Employment Tribunals have become expensive life altering
        ” Kangaroo Courts ” for employees and employers. lawyers and panel members. It is the Kangaroo’s punch on the nose that is now required to wake some people up.

  28. ak

    One mustn’t forget that judges can be incompetent, some more susceptible than others in having wool thrown over their eyes by tactical barristers. Or simply so overworked that they make up their mind too soon even where a careful consideration of evidence may be warranted. Whilst we may try to frame their follies under different banners of perversity, bias, etc., it may well be that they were well intentioned just that they aren’t driven or intelligent enough to get to the nub of the issues to decide.

    • Abdul

      No, we know corruption when we see one. If it is not corruption, let the Government allow the SFO to investigate my complaint.
      However, I have always said that while the ETs are the most corrupt element of the British judiciary, there is also a lot of corruption in the Family Courts, the County Courts, and the Criminal Courts. That’s why I said that we need two actions : (1) To establish a centralized, national, specialized, independent police force to investigate criminality, corruption and dishonesty of British judges (2) To establish a national public enquiry into the question of the corruption and dishonesty of British judges.
      No wonder, the Government oppose both steps.

      • Alan M Dransfield

        The SFO are just another useless quango. They have failed to investigate my claims of silent fraud and theft of Public Funds by the Balfour Beatty Group (BBG)related to PFI /PPP Nationwide . They did fine the BBG £2million pounds a few years ago for fraud and corruption on Overseas Contracts?? The BBG have also been fined for their involvement in the BLACKLISTING skull-duggery. They were also fined for their CONTRACT PRICE FIXING a few years back.

        The SFO also failed to investigate my claims at of Fraud and Corruption at the ICO.
        Who said crime doesn/t pay for the likes of the BBG, if you add up all their fines over the past decade, it will not amount to £10 million pounds. Nice little earner,pay lip service to H&S, shoot anybody who dares raise the infamous Elf &Safety,bobs your Uncle.
        How many CEO have BBG had in the last 5 years??!!

        Don’t make me laugh claiming the Employment System is NOT corrupt. Call it Mission Creep, Bangalore Principles, call it what you will, it is rotten to the CORE. In my view the ET system in the UK is run by Perfidious Albion which is no relation to West Bromich.

  29. Jabon

    “The adversarial process is not about justice but about one side winning and the other losing” … And you say it’s not corrupt? It’s a business. You tell me how something as ridiculous as “The Balance Of Probabilities” can be included into a system where factual evidence and truth is actively sought out. Hmm?

  30. Mark Eaves

    Employment Tribunals certainly can be completely biased against claimants. I found this out when I spent three years pusuing an unfair dismissal claim arising out of my employment in an employment tribunal office. In my case, the motive for bias was of course obvious. You might also like to read carefully the Appeal Court Judgment in Wendy Comfort and the Lord Chancellors Department ( 2004). I suspect that anyone who pusues a claim arising out of employment by the court system is going to find things very difficult.

    Given time, I could give very many examples of bias in my case, but I’ll confine myself here to just one . It’s the least bad thing they did actually, but it’s concrete and easy to summarise.

    The ET notified the parties that a full- merits hearing had been listed to start in four and a half months time. Ten weeks after the notice of hearing, the respondent applied for a postponment: one of its witnesses had booked annual leave for the week of the hearing. I objected to postponement: no holiday had been booked and paid for; the leave could be rearranged; and the respondent had delayed making the application, but there was no explanation for the delay. The ET granted the postponement without giving reasons for its decision. I requested areview of the decision, taking into account my objections, and I asked for reasons for the ET’s decision. The ET replied by saying that, under the Rules of Procedure, it was not obliged to give reasons for its decision, and the decision was not capable of being reviewed. I tried an urgent appeal to the EAT: the decision was perverse; the witness was not unavailable. The Appeal was dismissed on the sift: ” decisions as to postponement are peculiarly matters of judicial discretion…”.

    As a result, the respondent got a four -month delay in the proceedings, which it put to good use. They successfully applied to amend their ET3, submitted sixteen months previously, to add a new unparticularised alternative fair reason for dismissal. And they spent some time threatening me with costs if I did not settle.

    So I know that tribunals are capable of being biased when they want to be. What I don’t know is all the cicumstances in which claimants will face bias. I would say that anyone employed by HM Courts & Tribunals Service has got next to no chance, for obvious reasons. Beyond that, it obviously depends on what ties Employment Judges have to particular respondents, or how important a particular respondnet’s reputation is in eyes of the powers that be.

    Finally, an interesting thing I notice: there was a definite attitude on the part of the judiciary – very obvious at the last stages of my dealings with EAT – the the junior administrators who serve them in the Tribunals are an inferior species, who really should accept whatever their betters see fit to do to them. I have wondered since whether this attitude might colour the thinking of some Employment Judges when judging cases brought by others ” Not Of Our Class”, so to speak.

  31. Susie

    A member of my family lost their ET case. We strongly believe the judge was biased and was influenced by the powers that be, due to the respondent being a public body.
    We never thought the process could be so unfair and have absolutely no faith in the ET process. Wouldn’t recommend anyone to go through it.
    How could costs be awarded against a claimant when the respondent repeatedly lied and committed perjury, having a huge impact on future life. Shameful and very very wrong.

    • libby

      Yes my case was also against a public body and all their witnesses committed perjury, and were caught out in their lies – but the judge found in their favour and accepted their version of everything.
      People who haven’t been through it say move on – but it impossible.
      I have always been taught to tell the truth, and would never dream of lying to a policeman, or judge, but they lied continually, and are all still employed at the tax payers expense.
      It is always at the back of my mind – how can I ever believe a word anyone tells me?

      • Abdul

        There are all kinds of organizations to give emotional or mental help to victims of all kinds of crimes. There are no associations or groups to help victims of judicial crimes. The victims are usually left not only financially scarred (or ruined), but also emotionally ruined (usually the dishonest judgment describing them as liars or even money-grabbers, as people who just imagined that everyone tries to discriminate against them, etc).

  32. karim

    I had a claim for unfair dismissal and presented extensive evidence to the employment Tribunal. The judge found the dismissal unfair and wrongful but no compensatory award despite having provided several evidence, the case confusing about accountability and the hearing was completely showing the case won 100%.
    I still thinking that something gone wrong and has not been understood.
    After the appeal was rejected despite showing that the judgment was based on a sole unfair and partisan report.

  33. Douglas

    On reflection – The tribunal system itself may not be corrupt.
    However, I am certain too much authority is placed in the decisions of the elite independent judiciary, whose self regulated independence and case law is contrary and condescending of the rights bestowed by World leaders upon humanity in the aftermath of 2 world wars.

    Dangerously – In law nobody can intefere with the decisions of the independant judiciary..except themselves… they are the law.. and as Dickens said their sole purpose is to make money for themselves.

  34. Douglas

    On reflection – The tribunal system itself may not be corrupt.
    However, I am certain too much authority is placed in the decisions of the elite independent judiciary, whose self regulated independence and case law is contrary and condescending of the rights bestowed by World leaders upon humanity in the aftermath of 2 world wars.

    Dangerously – In law nobody can intefere with the decisions of the independant judiciary..except themselves… they are the law.. and as Dickens said their sole purpose is to make money for themselves.

  35. Waiting4Justice

    Naomi and Michael,
    you must have been incredibly lucky to have seen nothing to suggest there is any type of corruption or systematic wrongdoing going on because I have seen it in several cases.

    Sorry to shatter illusions here but not only does corruption and systematic wrongdoing exist in the ET it is also prevalent at the EAT and Court of Appeal.

    And sorry I don’t think the bias is that subtle or just part of human nature either it is blatant. When a Regional ET Judge secretly writes to a Lord Justice at the Court of Appeal to try and exonerate a judge accused of having fabricated their legal findings it is not bias but a definite criminal act of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

    The Regional Judge’s secret letter was only actually disclosed to us because he had also been allowed to secretly submit an illegally procured JACO report to the Lord Justices as purportedly credible evidence against and it was going to be used in court. What he failed to tell the Lord Justices though was that he had actually dismissed the ET Judge a whole year before the COA Hearing following a detailed complaint to him of how she had fabricated the judgment.

    He also failed to mention to the JACO investigation that the Judge had ceased office and allowed that investigation to be conducted illegally in breach of the Judicial Complaints Rules.

    When complaining to the Court of Appeal case management solicitor that the Regional Judge should not be secretly writing to anyone to influence the outcome of permission to appeal because he is not the opposing party the solicitor tells me “I should think myself lucky that the secret letter has actually been disclosed because documents are frequently withheld from parties during COA proceedings in breach of court protocol and the rules of natural justice”.

    I have no doubt the case management solicitor was telling the truth because he later confirmed in another conversation that what he said was correct.

    At the actual COA Hearing the Lord Justices stated they were going to rule on the day. Imagine their horror when they realise that we have been telling the truth all along and the Respondent cannot produce any evidence whatsoever to substantiate five findings of many fabricated findings referring to documents that did not exist and events that never happened. So what do they do – no they don’t rule on the day they say they are going to issue a reserved judgment instead because obviously now there is a real judicial dilemma that an ET Judge has fabricated findings.

    No surprise whatsoever when the reserved judgment ensured that the case was killed off with no mention of the Regional Judges letter or the fact that the Respondent could produce no evidence to support the findings.

    British Telecomms v Sheridan clearly states “The EAT can interfere with the decision of an Industrial Tribunal if they are satisfied that the Tribunal have misdirected themselves as to applicable law, or if there is no evidence to
    support a particular finding of fact, since the absence of evidence to support a finding of fact
    has always been regarded as a pure question of law.

    Clearly absence of evidence to support a finding is not a pure question of law when there are multiple findings unsupported by any evidence because at the end of the day protecting your fellow judicial brethren is far more important than applying the law.

    • Jean

      very much agree with this finding are completely fabricated in our case factual evidence is removed and judgement shows that perjury was commited by respondents as respondent own factual evidence disputes taht of the finding made completely

      • Abdul

        That’s the experience of most of us. We need a Public Enquiry to investigate whether the Employment Tribunal system is as corrupt as we claim.

        I don’t say that they need to let me chair this enquiry, though technically I probably can not less well than any judge or legal person. But then, to be balanced, neither should there be judges or lawyers on the panel. They can find other suitable persons to chair it and to be on the panel.

  36. Chris

    I came across this site whilst searching for help on an ET claim. I’m not legally qualified, and am commenting as an employee that has had to use the system.

    I do not believe that the system is any more corrupt than any other area of life. However, I do firmly believe that the limitations of any employment tribunal hardly acts as a disincentive to any large multi million £ employer to abide by the law! Having had to use an ET about 6 years ago, against a company worth approx £500m, and the award was nothing more than small change to them, and certainly wouldn’t dissuade them from doing it again. There needs to be something more, punitive damages maybe? Or certainly a ‘fine’ paid, in addition to what is paid to the employee. I now find I’m having to go through an ET again, simply because the remedy that will be awarded if the case is successful, is yet again, small change to another multi million £ company. On both occasions, there has been a serious breach of TUPE, along with other breaches. I’m a strong person, and will always stand up for what is right, but how many others are suffering at the hands of unscrupulous employers, and for whatever reason, cannot fight back? I honestly don’t think the ETs have enough ‘clout’ to make a difference.

    • Abdul

      “I do not believe that the system is any more corrupt than any other area of life”.
      In Britain, there are many corrupt judges within the family courts, the county courts, the criminal courts system.However, the corruption and criminality within the Employment Tribunal system is the worst. You are simply lucky that you did not meet this corruption to its full extent. It is my opinion and advice that people should not say “It does not exist” just because their case went nearer to decent : pay attention to what happens to other people as they tell you that. I assume that in 50 years and 100 years from now British citizens will still be complaining about cheating British judges, but at least we should pay attention to criminality and corruption of our judges as attested by victims, and fight against it. Otherwise it will be that we listen to a programme, for example, about persecution of a woman somewhere in the Islamic world and we say ;”Oh, what a horrible judge” ; but when we hear about the horrendous persecution of honest Claimants in our own Employment Tribunals by our corrupt judges, some people just cannot believe or do not want to believe the true stories.

      By the way : yes, other areas of life are also corrupt. Politicians, journalists, police, military, medical profession, headteachers, etc. But these are much investigated, and on rare occasions there is redress. Our Judges are never investigated, never sacked, and are literally above the law,

  37. Douglas

    In their shoes…..
    So you go to a good public school, get what is needed to go to Oxford or Cambridge to study law.. after graduation you work for seven years in the family practice, times are hard you apply for a position as a full time employment judge a nice earner six figure salary… by now you’re sending your own children off to the family school… out of the income from your salary and the shares in the family practice you still have a lot of spare money.. where does it go.. investment .. property, stocks and shares, pension funds etc… all of which rely upon the profitability and ongoing succes of business and the success of employers.. so when a weak whinging employee comes before you at the tribunal. In all honesty where do your sympathies lie?

    • Abdul

      Douglas, that’s an excellent description of the situation. Though it does not cover all the reasons and elements of corruption of Employment Judges, what you highlighted here in itself is spot on.

    • libby

      Also Douglas, who are these Judges and Barristers socialising with?
      Probably the CEOs and Chief Execs of PLCs, Public Bodies and Quangos etc…
      Many of which will be respondents in ET cases they preside over.
      Who do they play golf with, go down the Lodge with, whose kids are at the same school as theirs?
      Who lives in the same expensive enclaves?

      Fair hearing – pull the other one.

  38. Michael

    Yes. It is corrupt if it can cannot admit that it is not capable of managing the through put of cases! It, and the employment solicitors, are corrupt if their business is dependent on charging clients for the submission speculative Appeal claims on a just in case basis, whilst waiting for decisions which arrive out of time. The statute is a mess and remains a ‘low-odds, high-payout lottery’!

  39. peter genockey

    theres no doubt Judges in the employment tribunal are extremely biased towards employers and are dishonest. At my tribunal for unfair dismissal by way of redundancy the respondent contradicted his statements several times. They even invented a consultation process in their response which they had to withdraw because the dates made it impossible. Yet in the Judgement the Judge basically called me a liar, without any evidence to imply I had been anything but honest. The Judge even lied in his judgement . As I was not working I applied for a remission of fees so I could appeal. They asked for bank statements then refused me remission as I had some direct debits returned through lack of funds. They claimed this to be unexplained income, even though it was written on statement , returned direct debit. They were simply trying to stop me from appealing. I was shocked at the dishonesty of the judiciary . It can only be assumed that if they fail to uphold their own laws then they are corrupt wether or not money has passed hands. Corruption is not just about money passing hands

  40. Gabriel

    I just responded to the ET after an appalling judgment last year. I am an NHS Whistleblower who encountered a dangerous patient and tried to prevent a crime. Sadly, big cover up, I was to be disciplined, he did try and murder his girlfriend and The Southampton Tribunal just refused a fresh evidence review even though I have absolute proof of a serious cover up. Minutes of meetings vanished, suicides inappropriately investigated….ET judge stated the fresh evidence makes no difference to his judgment. It is absurd. The Probation Service confirm my risk assessment was not shared and that I was Professionally Undermined, covert bullying ….and it makes no difference. He cites significant public interest in concluding justice swiftly, my case was heard in May 2013 ….my employer took three years to diagnose PTSD after spending an hour with this man who had previously murdered a child ….waiting on a decision by the EAT, I have my MPs full backing since Probation revealed the cover up ….escalation to the Parliamentary ombudsman imminent but I have come to realise it’s a sick game with very deceitful people. NHS failed to disclose documents that would have supported me, so perverted justice and ET judge doesn’t bat an eyelid. His judgment was so shocking anyone reading it would think I was an evil person, I became so unwell after receiving the judgment I would say it was an extremely destructive process. NHS Barrister admitted on final day that him and the judge go back 5 years…which the judge did not respond to …but I had a sense then and so did my partner that something was very wrong. Lawyers made endless errors and failed to get evidence that I now have, it’s a farce, as professionals I do not equate the word justice with lawyers and judges any longer. Eyes wide open.

  41. Susie

    The ET system is a disgrace, as are the judges that work in it.
    I recently went through an ET and sadly lost. ET does get it wrong and 20% of cases is an awful lot of people let down by the system.
    The employer and its employees lied continuously throughout my ET and were believed by the judge and lay judges. I was honest throughout, but was accused of being untruthful. The respondent had a legal team skilled in winning through lies. They had a reputation for it and I believe they were drafted in just to win by any means. I now have to live with the outcome and costs order against me. All a total disgrace and I’m now at the stage where I wish the police to become involved to investigate the perjury. I cant live with my losses when others lied. Very difficult.
    A warning for anyone considering going through an ET. Don’t do it. The whole system is a farce and not worth all the stress, anxiety and huge impact on your health, well-being and family. Shameful !!
    I feel pure hatred towards them.

    • Abdul

      Susie, I am very sorry to hear about the way you were cheated. Your sad story is similar to the experience of a vast number of honest claimants.

      You should not think that you lost because you presented your case in a less skillful way than the solicitors representing the other side : many times the result of a case is fixed well in advance of the hearing in secret contact between the Employment Judge and the Respondents (I do not know whether this happened in your case or not, but it is theoretically possible). In fact, many times they even do not need to fix it in advance in secret meetings : they have reached ‘certain understanding’ long time ago. Time and again we see witnesses of the Respondents telling lies and lies, as against a Claimant who tells the truth : but it is the liars who are ‘believed’. The Tribunal knows alright that the witnesses of the Respondent lied, but the Tribunal have their own corrupt interests and their friendships to consider, so the corrupt Employment Tribunal tell us lies (this include the Trade Union representatives, these people have their private interests relating to being given days in Court).

      Sometimes there is a whole system of fraud involved, when, unknown to the Claimant, the Regional Employment Judge appoints at least one member of the Tribunal who has very serious vested interest in victory for the Respondents. This and other ways of cheating are our own British speciality. In rare cases you may find – later – that the main Employment Judge already had ‘a conviction’ for being biased towards Respondents, but he never reveals that to the sides.

      In the judgment, some Employment Judges employ tens of cheating techniques (for example : not even mentioning main arguments of Claimants when those arguments are not comfortable for their cheating ; by the rules they have – as far as I have read – to mention in the judgment each major argument of the Claimant and say why they reject it, otherwise it is a major ‘error in law’ of the ET, but in reality they may mention in their judgment just 4 out of 40 main arguments, and cheat and lie and twist and misrepresent even about those 4).

      Another dirty trick is putting full costs on the Claimant. In order to do this the Employment Tribunal need first to cheat on every single point, which they easily do because that’s their training. By throwing on you massive costs they intend to break you financially so that you will be scared to go to the EAT with an appeal. The idea is : they think that if you lost so much money in the original Hearing through costs, you will be terrorized into believing that the EAT will also cheat against you and will put extra costs on you. I think that this system of terrorism of Employment Tribunals is highly successful.

      I believe that going to local police is useless, as it has been useless for all victims of sexual abuse committed by establishment figures. And I believe that all 3 main parties are in agreement that corruption in Employment Tribunal should continue, because it is good for the establishment.

      In my opinion the Ministry of Justice is sending highly corrupt employment judges as ‘roving ambassadors’ to different local ETs so that they will teach local Employment Judges how to be even more corrupt.

      I sympathize with you !

      By the way : who were your Tribunal members and in which city / town ?

    • P

      I fully agree – I had the same the judge at Southampton even went back on his own wording in Favor of the company – absolute disgrace and I would advise everybody not to waste there money especially if it is to be heard at Southampton

  42. Sophy

    I received my reserved judgement on unfair dismissal and discrimination case this dismissed all my case this recently.
    The judge from day 1 shouted me down in court. he would not let me call back important witnesses.
    More shocking was that he did not consider any thing that was evident in my favour and only referred to information provided by my former employer who had false witnesses.
    He accepted that someone referring to me as unrefined because he didn’t like the way I ate was but accepted that it was a cultural thing was not discriminatory. This person said this in court.
    He decided that a man who constantly bullied me in meetings and wrote derogatory emails to me was not in the wrong but didn’t know how to write emails.
    He misrepresented information that was in the bundle to make literarily defend the respondent in his response.
    I wish the hearing was recorded as it was just me, my employer and its 8 false witnesses, their 2 very skilled lawyers and the tribunal members. I fear that what they wrote was different from what was said.
    Even when a witness admitted that I was stopped from hiring staff as he was instructed, the judge didn’t even state that in her judgement it.
    The judge went ahead to assassinate my character in her report claiming that he witnessed me being manner less. This is false. And till the day I die I will never stop wondering why he chose to do this.
    The judge refused to admit document I presented during the hearing on the grounds that it was not in the bundle. yet he admitted everything the employer presented up to the last day of hearing.
    He even told me that I was in a lot of trouble because document that were not provided before the hearing appeared from nowhere and he accepted them to be genuine without confirming.
    Employer did everything to make it difficult for me to manage my case. E.g. they sent the witness statements 3 weeks late. By the time they sent it I was very ill with flu and didn’t have time to study them to prepare. They had a different bundle with the tribunal and told me it was just the page numbers that differed. The page numbering issue was enough to throw me out of balance. Coupled with the way the judge was treating me in court I lost confidence during interrogation and most times did not complete interrogation as she was strictly timing me.
    I am struggling to understand why an employment judge would be so biased to the extent he decided an email that made me feel very inferior and upset was just someone not knowing how to craft email and interpreted that my reporting that a fraudulent action may occur due to serious conflict of interest presented by my boss’s friend working in a position of authority was just me being inflammatory and accusing people without evidence. evidence in bundle is clear that I reported this and soon afterwards was dismissed. yet the judge say I am quick to come to conclusions without evidence.
    And if I remember clearly he told employer’s lawyer that “I have advised you on what to do about that” This is in reference to one of my witnesses whom he didn’t approve because he provided information that was relevant to my case that the respondent considers their confidential information. I was shocked as I never heard her advice the respondents lawyer and don’t know where the advice came from and why in my absence.
    Someone warned me that I won’t find justice at the tribunal.. I didn’t know to what extent they will twist the truth and accept lies.
    He said I was evasive. Meanwhile I answered all questions put to me but my employers witnesses kept saying ” I do not remember”.
    I feel ill from the outcome of this. I don’t have money to appeal and don’t have any energy left. It is beyond corruption. It is evil.
    Who is my advocate..No one.

  43. Dr Jayaprakash A Gosalakkal

    My experience with the ET at Leicester is salutary and deeply humiliating.The judge and the panel from the word go made it explicit they believed the barrister for the employer UHL in all matters.the Judge was openly hostile and made snide comments through out.I would not advise anyone to go through such a biased process

    • Abdul

      What was the name of the Employment Judge, and who were the two lay members of this Employment Tribunal ?

    • Abdul

      Dr Gosalakkal, for your attention. The Leicester Employment Tribunal has a long history of causing outcries about (alleged) vicious bias and corruption (and about using costs awards used to terrorize honest Claimants) – all in favour powerful bodies of the Establishment. I myself submitted a long complaint against a few individual judges and lay members of the Leicester Employment Tribunal, but the Serious Fraud Office refuses even to acknowledge receipt of my complaints (except for the automatic electronic receipt). Did you know that a previous Regional Employment Judge for the East Midlands has been formally declared biased after a case heard by him in Leicester – see Bailii case number : [2004] UKEAT 0947_03_0408, Appeal No. UKEAT/0947/03, at the EAT on 4 August 2004, before HH Judge McMullen. I truly wish you good luck in your struggle.

  44. Douglas

    The Tribunal System is corrupt?
    I may have found the answer…. why there are many people who believe this to be true.
    The document is “The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct”
    http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/corruption/judicial_group/Bangalore_principles.pdf
    I read this document and for me it was TOTAL 99.9% COMMON SENSE it was how I was raised, I dare say it reads the same for all of us who have posted here.
    It outlines the conduct one would expect from any member of the Judiciary. It is a not only a guide to conduct but also a good guide of humanity and human rights. However from my experiences and those of the others listed on this post. Many members of the Judiciary, upstanding citizens, employers and employees alike, do not follow these basic principles. If a Judge does not follow these principles they lose their right of independence making their judgments unsound, the same goes for employers and their employment lawyers, who seem to have unregulated, elevated themselves to the position of an independent judiciary? Who always decide in their own favour. Naturally the employers unjust claims are taken to the Tribunal where the Judge rules in favour of the employer, those poor souls who are on the receiving end of such unjust treatment see it as corruption. Is it corrupt to neglect Judicial conduct and hide behind the defense of a Judicial decision, which takes precedence Judicial conduct or a Judicial decision at this moment in time in the UK Employment Tribunals, I believe as the law stands; Judicial decision has it , “it doesn’t matter how badly your employer treats you”
    Well everybody which is it?

    • Abdul

      Douglas, as you said, these principles and regulations seem impressive on paper, but they are strictly NOT followed by the majority of Employment Judges. It is not a case of just neglecting to follow them out of laziness and then an unjust results – just by mistake – pop out from the judgment of the Tribunal. We talk here about deliberate and clear patterns of corruption.

      We talk here about secret pre-hearing contact between the judge and the respondents not only to fix the result of the case in advance but to agree in advance which arguments the Respondents should raise which the Judge will accept even if they are being completely destroyed by the Claimant during the Hearing ; we talk here about corrupt Regional Employment Judges deliberately putting into the specific Tribunals people who belong to the Respondents (in a big institution, not always a Claimant can know it : I did not know it) and / or who have massive personal vested interest in a win for the Respondents ; we talk here about the deliberate use of tens of different techniques of cheating by the judge in just one case ; we talk here about massive number of overturn of rules, of cheats, of absurd lies by a judge (sometimes near 1,000 in just one case).
      Now all this corruption is not happening out of some innocent mistake by Employment Judges : there is a defined, specific purpose to all this, and to all that corruption that other commentators have described in their posts.

      This is pure Corruption. Being made in Britain, it is ‘high quality corruption’ : judges are experts in hiding it. Their effective, true education is not in reading and learning the Bangalore Declaration which you have dug out, it is in how to cheat when they get a case in which they want to cheat in favour of the Respondents. Sure, they don’t talk in such direct terms, but when they learn and study all these dirty tricks, they have their tacit ways of communicating ideas to that effect.

    • Jean

      Thanks douglas judicial conduct forms part of our case and we have been refused right to appeal but intend to take it further till we get justice and ruling overturned. This may well be usefull as it goes into duties in more detail and judge who made reserved decision has an extremly close family member working for the company concerned in a high paid position.

      • Abdul

        Jean, in which region did this happen ? I have been saying all along that this is one of the dirty tricks used from time to time by Regional Employment Judges. In my case, took me some two years to discover all that.

  45. Douglas

    corrupt – definitions
    adjective
    1. lacking in integrity; open to or involving bribery or other dishonest practices ⇒ a corrupt official, corrupt practices in an election
    2. morally depraved
    3. putrid or rotten
    4. contaminated; unclean
    5. (of a text or manuscript) made meaningless or different in meaning from the original by scribal errors or alterations
    6. (of computer programs or data) containing errors
    verb
    7. to become or cause to become dishonest or disloyal
    8. to debase or become debased morally; deprave
    9. (transitive) to infect or contaminate; taint
    10. (transitive) to cause to become rotten
    11. (transitive) to alter (a text, manuscript, etc) from the original
    12. (transitive) (computing) to introduce errors into (data or a program)

    • Douglas

      After a process of elimination I am left with

      corrupt Definitions
      adjective
      1. lacking in integrity; open to or involving bribery or other dishonest practices ⇒ a corrupt official
      5. (of a text or manuscript) made meaningless or different in meaning from the original by – alterations
      verb
      7. to become or cause to become dishonest or disloyal
      11. (transitive) to alter (a text, manuscript, etc) from the original

      • Douglas

        Applying the definition of corrupt to my case I am left with:

        I found the tribunal lacking in integrity; and open to dishonest practices. My statements was meaningless to the Judge or different in meaning in the reasons from the original by Judicial alteration.

        By altering the version of events from the original.
        The respondents had become and caused the Judge to become dishonest.

        Put simply to reach the decision the Judge did was in contravention of the Bangalore Principles and therefore corrupt!

  46. libby

    I was very optimistic when I went to my ET because I knew that I was in the right. I had been treated abysmally by my employer for years, including threats and bullying, I also had hundreds of pieces of evidence to prove every single word I said. But I was nervous because I knew the deck was stacked against me by just looking at the statistics.

    When my barrister arrived that morning and heard who the judge was on my case, he started telling me about the appeals process!
    The judge was apparently fairly new to the ET, and the respondent was a public sector employer, who has bottomless pockets.
    My Barrister forewarned me that it was a fact that if they lost (i,e if I won) they would immediately appeal and bring in the big legal guns – and no judge wants it on their record that their judgement was overturned on appeal, especially a new and inexperienced judge – so hence my chances of winning were now down to less than 1%

    I innocently thought we would all be telling the truth. Unfortunately, I was the only one who did so, The amount of lying which came out of their mouths, and from their barrister was staggering.The witnesses for the respondent were actually caught out in their lies on several occasion – while sitting just a few feet from the judge. Their Barrister in his summing up admitted my redundancy was “not a fair redundancy situation”.
    Great I think, they have admitted it.

    The Judgement came out weeks later in their favour, The Judge did not mention one word about all the lies they had been caught out telling. In fact the judgement was littered with comments such as “I accept the respondents account…., I accept the respondents version…. I accept the respondents statement….” Yet every word they had said was a lie. I wonder if the judge who had heard the case actually wrote the judgement, or maybe he fell asleep during the case?
    Talk about a convenient loss of memory.

    So Perhaps not ‘corrupt’ in that the judges takes bribes – but in every other meaning of the word yes, they are corrupt to the core.
    I now have no respect at all for the law, for barrister, lawyers – the whole stinking lot of them. They are just rotten through and through.
    All they are bothered about is money, money, MONEY.
    It is so bad, I cannot even watch TV or film courtroom dramas. To hear lines such as “we want to know the truth …” makes me feel physically ill. When I hear a judge say “lie to me once and it throws a question mark over your whole testimony…..” what an absolute joke.

    I now know first hand why the legal profession is viewed with such hatred and contempt by so many people – and most are not criminals.
    I would not risk my liberty by doing any harm to the scum I met in the ET – that includes the judge and the respondents team, but I do hope that Karma exists, and that they receive their just deserts. Something very long and excruciatingly painful.
    As to anyone considering using the ET, I would not say don’t bother, but just go into it pre-warned that the other side will lie, and lie and lie, and that it does not matter what evidence you have to prove you are telling the truth – the judge isn’t bothered about hearing the truth, but more about where they are on the league table of results.

    Just scanning through some of the earlier posts I notice one by Hermione,,,, sorry I am actually crying as I write this.
    I can relate so much to what she wrote.
    The judgement I received was so badly written and full of so many mistakes I though it was a joke (are judges not supposed to be well educated ?)
    Then I realised, that instead of writing a judgement, the judge had simply copied huge chunks out of the respondents argument – which had been exposed in the ET as being a complete tissue of lies and full of factual errors!
    How professional is that to copy a load of rubbish and pass it off as your own work…. do Judges not get paid enough to actually construct an English sentence ?
    Why do they have the travesty of an ET, when the judges cannot be bothered to even consider the evidence in front of them ?

    Just a wild guess here – are the ET proceedings recorded?
    I bet not. Heaven forbid it could be proved that the whole system is a sham.

    • Jean

      very much agree with you on that libby reading judgement was like reading respondents version of claim and it acyaually proves as a fact that perjury took place on part of repondent as respondents own factual documentation disputes the findings made as factually incorrect and unsupported, yet appeal courts keep ignoring the evidence which was before the tribunal and all reference to the factual evidence have been taken out in the findings made in judgement and replaced by respondents hearsay

  47. Pingback: Do Claimants ever win in the Employment Tribunal? - Employment Tribunal ClaimsEmployment Tribunal Claims
  48. Peter Jackson

    My view in regard to original proposition “Is the tribunal system corrupt”,
    well it obviously depends on your definition of ‘corrupt’ of course but clearly Tribunal members and Employment Judges are independent and impartial and very unlikely to derive personal benefit from reaching a particular judgement and the rules are the same for both parties so the answer in that sense has to be ‘No’, the system is not corrupt. However if the question is really asking is the system morally ‘fair’, the answer is also a very definite and unequivocal ‘No’. As others have stated, for it to be morally fair, both parties would have to have equal resources to call on, ie legal representation (even then there will be inequality between competency levels of respective legal advocates but that’s a different matter). If the Tribunal system was/is intended to enable self-advocacy by litigants in person it is inherently unfair and unequal if in such cases the defendant has legal representation. In such instances it is self-evident that it fails the ‘moral fairness’ test. A solution, and it would still have flaws and be imperfect, would be for neither party to be allowed to have legal representation and simply be for them to present what they consider to be the facts of the case and their perspective, and allow the Judge to determine the ‘points of law’ without the intimidating bluster and use of deliberately confusing legalese by legal advocates. As this would result in less work for the legal profession it could be argued that Judges have a vested ‘professional’ interest to oppose it! In conclusion, this argument is simply part of the overarching and more fundamental question of ‘is there equal and fair access to justice for all?’, to which I think few would argue that the answer is again unequivocally ‘No’!

  49. Paul Cardin

    Having lost my livelihood at two adjoining councils, and…

    o been treated like dirt, along with my family, before being cast aside
    o had two sets of bogus ‘gross misconduct’ charges levelled at me
    o watched employment rights for employees being eroded top down
    o watched legal protections for employers being upgraded and enhanced
    o witnessed employers breaching their own policies & procedures at will, with no prospect of accountability
    o won both cases with no need for tribunals, but come to the conclusion that I would have lost if I had gone to tribunal

    …it’s time for the authors of this blog to get out of their dusty courtrooms and see what’s going on in the real, blood and guts world of employer bullying and abuse. They’ve obviously had absolutely NO experience of what goes on at abusive, bullying (both proven) employers like Wirral Borough Council and Cheshire West and Chester Council, who are free to remove your statutory rights. Go on, Michael and Naomi. Google my name, along with “DP / FOI ban”, “compromise agreements”; then read, learn and ingest something very valuable, learned the hard way.

    • Abdul

      The greatest majority of cheating by Employment Judges and by Employment Tribunals (out of the vast number of deliberate cheating and dishonesties which British ETs commit) happen in cases involving public organizations, and above all : local authorities. Employment Tribunals are simply an arm of the local councils. There are cases of corrupt Regional Employment Judges putting into the Tribunals members of the same local council against whom the claim was lodged. People lose their 100% winning claims against local authorities and they wonder how it could happen ; the answer is : because we are in Britain, a highly corrupt country, with an unbroken history of corrupt governments and corrupt judiciary.

    • Jean

      paul could do with your help and ideas for how to obtain justice against well known corporate company as we have been denied the right to appeal by our court system protecting this corporate company and judiciary ignoring their legal duties.

  50. Paul Cardin

    Seems to me like someone’s been congratulating each other, living the high life on easy public money, and quaffing brandies with employers for so long, they no longer know which way is up.

  51. TrevR

    Throughout my own case as a litigant in person I was grateful for the advice I was able to find here and I would thoroughly recommend it to anyone considering conducting their own case but …

    I’m a little surprised that discussing possible corruption in the employment tribunal is hosted here on a web site owned by legal professionals!

    How can the practicing legal professionals who own this web site possibly admit here in the public domain that the the employment tribunal is,or its judges are corrupt on any level!

    Surely, that would be commercial suicide?

    On the question of recording in the ET, I believe there would be far fewer cases for appeal if recording was permitted in the ET. I don’t believe it is ever going to happen and it isn’t hard to see why.

    As I see it the employment tribunal system is not fit for purpose and is corrupt from the top down, bottom up, inside out and any other possible angle. I won my case and I believe I won it because I was always open to the possibility that corruption was rife in the legal system persay, but particularly so in the ET.

  52. Glenn

    Hi All,

    I have brought two cases to the tribunal, and won both over 60k and 10k. Both bullying, ect.
    I have also represented two colleagues, one sexual harassment/ discrimination and the other Racial and Sex discrimination. The main reason for winning, is having someone who can bring you away from the emotional and personal self. It is easy to get over emotional on these things and your opponent will work on this. The judge is locked in on a legal outcome and so the odds are stacked against you. However the system is fair but must be proved.

  53. Jean

    My experience is that the system is corrupt when it comes to corporate companies. In the case that I am involved with for disability discrimination the hearing was totallt unfair and biased and did not follow the correct procedures. Perjury was comitted by the respondent witnesses and all undisputable factual evidence for the claimant was removed and a reserved judgement was given in favour of the respondent employer, no reasons are given why or how it came to the conclusions it did or whether it was unaminous for the panel of three. An extremely close family member of the judge works for the employer concerned and the employers barrister was a fellow part time employment judge. All attempts to get the judsgement overturned have been refused and refuse leave to appeal despite overwhelming evidence that the tribunal did not act according to law. I can form no other conclusion other than a corrupt system denying the employee justice and protecting the employer concerned. The courts have a duty to act within the law and yet they are protecting the perpertarotors. By no means however will we stop to, we intend to ensure justice is done and seen to be done and get the judgement overturned, not just for this case but to ensure the protection of the rights of other employees from the corporate sector that believe and act as if they are above the law and show them they are not.

  54. Lawrence

    MANTRAS How ridiculous is this?
    One of the ‘reasons’ given by the judge when dismissing my claim was that it was not the role of the tribunal to replace their decision with that of the employer. When I relate this to any fair minded member of the public their reaction is, ‘Then what is the point of going to a tribunal?’
    This negated the need for any reasons to be provided to me.
    To illustrate my point further please consider the following report on a case:
    Range of Responses Test:
    In an unfair dismissal case, is it for the tribunal to decide whether or not the dismissal was fair?
    No, says the EAT in Bryant v Sage Care Homes Ltd.
    Ms Bryant, a nurse with a long and unblemished record, worked at the Respondent’s nursing home.
    Ms Bryant was dismissed for failing to record or report an error. The tribunal held that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The EAT held that although any reader of the tribunal judgment might think that Ms Bryant had been harshly treated, the decision was not perverse.
    There is nothing new or startling in this judgment. But those who persist in thinking the ‘range of reasonable responses’ test an impermissible gloss on the language of section 98 may derive some wry amusement from a judgment of which the judge’s own summary puts the point this baldly: ‘It was not the task of the employment tribunal or the EAT to decide whether the dismissal was fair.’
    My comment:- It is my opinion that any ‘fair minded’ person’s reaction would not be ‘wry amusement’ but rather one of shock and horror. When putting in a claim for unfair dismissal, the expectation is, and should be that the tribunal will make such a decision. There seem to be a growing number of mantras used by judges which denies this role. Another which is commonly quoted in many cases is ‘ the tribunal must not replace their decision with that of the employer.’ In the reasons given to me, after a long tirade the judge finally adds this mantra. To me this negates the need for any of the preceding pages. If there is no such thing as ‘unfair dismissal’ in the eyes of the tribunal why isn’t it in the rules? I cannot see how that equates with the pledge to ‘do right by all manner of people.’ If the judges work on these principles the employer only has to put forward a token resistance and they cannot lose. If it is deemed that the employer is always right, any tribunal hearing is a complete waste of time and resources.
    Update 2014:
    This has been confirmed in a more recent case which was reported: In an unfair dismissal case, is it for the tribunal to decide whether or not the dismissal was fair? No, says the EAT in Bryant v Sage Care Homes Ltd.
    This is confusing as the claims that are submitted to the tribunal to be adjudicated are labelled as ‘unfair dismissal.’ Why are these cases accepted and allowed to progress to a hearing?
    Mantras
    Some time ago I read a criticism of judges using ‘mantras’ to dismiss claims. I have been a victim of this habit. The tribunal in the reasons stated that they must remind themselves that they ‘cannot interfere with the decision of the employer,’ thus discounting all of the previous deliberations. This beggars the question of why it was necessary to produce the ‘reasons’ which, if you read them, are simply blank agreements with all of the fabricated insults and accusations that the Respondent launched at me in retribution for making disclosures. I was standing up to bullying in the workplace. If this is what Judge Parker categorises as ‘a cavalier attitude to management’ on my part, the alternative was to continue to suffer and to watch others suffering. The costs of bullying in the workplace in health and financial terms is well documented. The Respondent has very clear policies to protect their employees, which reflect the advice from ACAS, but they only exist on paper.
    The obvious and logical retort that I have received to this mantra from the fair minded public is – ‘then what is the point of going to a tribunal?’ More recently I was shocked to read a lawyer assert that the tribunal decision ‘does not have to be fair to the claimant, it only has to be a decision that the employer could have made.’ These together mean that the employer is always right and that fairness is not a factor to be considered by the tribunal. I am sure that this has strayed substantially from the original purpose of the tribunals. I have compiled a list of such mantras. I believe the mantra that the tribunal cannot interfere with the decision of the employer was taken from a case involving expert evidence and has been misapplied to cases that are vastly different. Some judges seem to have grasped this gleefully as it simplifies their role enormously.
    Lord Justice Underhill identified this problem in:
    Council of the City of Newcastle Upon Tyne v Mr J Marsden, ( Appeal No. UKEAT/0393/09/CEA)
    There is in this field as in others a tendency – often denounced but seemingly ineradicable – for broad statutory discretions to become gradually so encrusted with case-law that decisions are made by resort to phrases or labels drawn from the authorities rather than on a careful assessment of what justice requires in the particular case.
    I can identify with this directly. I can show that in every decision I have been given, cases have been quoted but not applied to the facts of my case. The phrases and labels alone have been used.
    It would seem that there has been no improvement since 2009.

    Quoting a case cannot be classified as a ‘reason.’ This is the crux of the complaint I put forward about Judge Cowling. The case quoted specified that the decision should identify the comparative hardships to either party should an amendment be allowed. Judge Cowling did not give these details.

    Every subsequent judgement has been based on this decision. Each judge takes an individual oath to HRH Queen Elizabeth to ‘do right by all manner of people.’ I do not see a clause that adds ‘unless it means disagreeing with another judge.’ To be successful in an appeal there must be such a disagreement.
    And yet I have been refused on this basis – making any appeal a futile exercise. ( cannot consider evidence …..cannot interfere with the tribunal decision)..
    The judges refer to their colleagues as ‘brothers’ or ‘brethren.’
    The ‘reasons’ I have been given are merely conclusions. These conclusions do not correlate with the evidence presented.
    EAT – 17/12/10 Roberts v Carlin – requirements for “Meek compliance”
    In order for an Employment Tribunal judgment to be “Meek compliant” (ie provide adequate information) it must explain why the evidence of one party is preferred to that of another and, if appropriate to the case, why the evidence of a witness whose credibility was not questioned is rejected.
    All based on natural justice and common sense and democracy – as LJUnderhill recognised judges regularly quoting a case to by pass the need to explain.

    The Response to my Notice of Appeal – ‘sift judges’ do not have to explain their refusals. The sift judge looking at my Notice of Appeal would not give reasons for his decision and responded that he ‘was the sift judge only.’ There was no indication that he had read any of the points of law I put forward. I enquired why the judgment had been deemed to be ‘Meek’ Compliant’ when no evidence had been had been referred to.

    In my complaints I have likened these mantras to everyday situations, including my profession. For example: How would I stand if I had told a parent that the a decision I made about their child did not have to be fair – only a decision I could make..
    ..That I did not have to explain why I had put one child in detention and exonerated the rest involved in the misdemeanour? That I could choose not to enter a child for an exam without explaining why?

    I have even read that it is fair to side with management so that they did not have to lose face. This is how the bullies get to the top. Let them off because of their status.
    That is what has happened to me. I hope that it has improved working conditions for those remaining. If it has I have been sacrificed for the cause – but how long would it last? Just until someone else with an evil streak emerges and poisons the working environment.

    • Abdul

      Lawrence, this is an amazing post. Thank you for writing it. You will help many claimants who read it to overcome their self-doubt that may be they have lost because of their incompetence rather than due to what they may well feel to be gross dishonesty of an Employment Tribunal.

      • Abdul

        Lawrence, your post has done a lot to impress on doubters that once we nter the world of ‘British justice’, we in fact enter a Kafkaesque world.

  55. libby

    Just shows how badly I view the legal system.
    I watched the first series of Broadchurch, and really enjoyed it. I was so looking forward to the new series.
    But as soon as I realised it is spending most of its time in the court, and much of the story is going to revolve around the two Barristers, I have had to stop watching it.

    Got a good joke though…
    How can you tell if a lawyer is lying?
    They’re breathing.

  56. Alan M Dransfield

    I am of the opinion that the Employment Tribunal System is corrupt.
    I am currently before the ECHR in Strasburgh with my Employment Legal Redress and each UK court in turn have failed to recognise I was sacked for whistleblowing under PIDA 1998 and not simple Redundancy as my former Employer Claims.I have exhausted the UK Legal system with the final straw of the Court of Appeal claiming that my case is without any merit whatsoever.If my Case had no merit,why was it heard at ET AND EAT Level??!!

    In August 2009, I was sacked by Balfour Beatty (BB)one of the biggest.
    Civil Engineering Contractors in Europe, whom claimed they terminated me for Lawful Redundancy measures. Whilst,I will accept there was at that time a downturn in the UK Construction Market,BB order books were bulging and I requested a transfer anywhere in the World to stay employed by BB.
    BB kept me on Gardening Leave for 9 months with full pay and Car until they investigated my claims of whisleblowing . I maintain the BB inquiry was a whitewash.

    Ironically, I am also at the Court of Appeal on a totally separate issue regarding the definition of VEXATIOUS under the FOIA 2000.
    This appeal hearing is scheduled for the 27th/28th Jan 2015.

    BB were also the ringleaders in the BLACKLISTING scandal which has seen thousands (including myself) being blacklisted and prevented from working in the Construction Industry in the UK for being Union Members or raising H&S issues.

    It is not just a question of me claiming the Employment System is corrupt just because I lost my Case , it is certainly not. I claim my ET/EAT/ Court of Appeal were corrupt and I am convinced about that owing to my BB Employment and FOIA Case.

    Strangely enough,my FOIA Case currently before the Court of Appeal also involves Balfour Beatty because they designed and built the Project which is subject to the Court of Appeal FOIA case in two weeks. In particular, I refer to the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge (ECRB) was built by BB and was one of the subjects of my whistleblowing. I maintained back in 2006 that the ECRB was unsafe and unfit for purposes. The ET/EAT/CoA Judges claimed my whistleblowing was timed with my redundancy notice in Nov 2008.
    Not only do I claim the ET system is corrupt,I claim the ET/EAT are complicit with Employers AND Local Authorities ref Employment Litigation.

  57. Richard

    I had an experience at an ET whereby the judge was quite obviously a freemason and he was well aware that the rogue employer was also a freemason, needless to say, despite conclusive evidence against the rogue employer, they got away with it, and even today, they are still continuing the same practice. Despite the claimant making an official complaint about the judge and one of the lay members (employer) nothing was ever done. I now find out that this particular judge was involved in another case whereby the claimant had a QC on the cae and although they won, there was an official complaint made against the judge as he tried to use his influences within the Lodge to find out and dig dirt on the claimant. As far as I am aware, this same judge albeit corrupt, is still sitting in judgement of others. This is totally wrong, he should have been kicked out of the tribunal as well as losing his ticket to practice as a solicitor, of which he is not even good at from what I
    understand, he is only interested in the money and the Lodge.

    It is obvious that there is very little if any checking on these very people who sit in judgement of others, there are no spot checks or nothing, this surely proves that not only the system is not fit for purpose, but many of those sitting in judgement are not fit for purpose either.

    The last ET that I done, the judge, a women continuously critisised me, it was evidently clear from the first five minutes of the hearing that we ere not going to win, despite overwhelming evidence to prove what the employer had done and that all of the employers witnesses had clearly lied, but no this horrid woman sitting alone had obviously made up her mind that we were not going to win. She had not even bothered to read any of the claim, she wanted ten minute breaks every 30 minutes so that she could read the file. I told her clearly that I was not happy and that
    she should have read the file prior to hearing the case, all she said was, yes I agree but I did not, that was the end of it. I advised my client to appeal the decision as it was obvious from the start that we had the cards stacked against us and I did not consider that we had a fair hearing. Unfortunately the claimants could not afford to proceed and also it was affecting their health. So, this was another case of clear corruption, and as this was the second case where I had considered that we had not had a fair hearing, both of these corrupt employment judges are still sitting in judgement of others and continuing in their corrupt ways. Totally disgraceful.

    Regardless, what else can we expect having in mind that many of those responsible for these employment judges are corrupt themselves, even the ministers are corrupt, so this filters down the line. My own personal opinion is, that these people that belong to the Freemasons should not be sitting in judgement of others, even more so when the respondent is highly likely to be a Freemason. The Freemasonry should not be in the legal system in any shape or form, as this breeds corruption, but until such times as we have people at the top of the tree who are straight and honest, then the system and those sitting in judgement of others will continue to breed contempt and corruption.

  58. Anne

    It seems to me that for many of you, corruption is proven because the Judge chose to believe the respondents who you say were lying, rather than you. Putting myself in the shoes of a Judge (if only, I would love their salary!), how on earth are they supposed to know that a witness is lying unless the barrister or claimant exposes that lie under cross examination? That is what cross examination is for. At best all a tribunal can do is listen to the arguments from both sides and take a punt at which one they feel is more convincing. That is not corruption.

    I go back to the old Industrial Tribunal days as a lay trade union member who represented my members. At that time, proceedings were far more informal and claimants came away feeling they had at least been listened to. Since those days, Chairs have become Judges, barristers have become essential and fewer and fewer people have any idea what is going on in the tribunal room.

    It is worth remembering that EJ’s have no choice but to make their decision according to the law as it stands, and they must also follow legal precedent, and I think that is where most of the problems occur. If a previous EAT Judge said that a procedure or test has to be followed, then the EJ’s hands are tied as they are not allowed to go against the EAT, even if they disagree with them, I suppose. At any rate, this just doesn’t happen. So, if you are going into tribunal, it makes sense to find out what the EAT has decided in previous cases, and then use their arguments, if you can to persuade the tribunal that right is on your side.

    Regarding how much people receive when they win a case, the EJ is only allowed to award the sum that has been lost, plus a bit for injury to feelings or similar. Unless you are on a high income and lost a lot of money, your award will almost certainly be less than your barrister’s fees. Like all law, the only ones who benefit are the lawyers.

    What I find confuses claimants more than anything is identifying the issues that are to be decided. They often want to bring up every grievance and dispute in tribunal even though most are unrelated to the issues that have been agreed by both parties. They also forget that things that happened years ago are out of time and cannot be heard. The ET only decide the agreed issues, so everything else that you think is important, to them, just isn’t, and many people go wrong from the beginning when they fill in their ET1. Get that wrong and fail to mention something at that time, then the ET will not allow you to add it later. This is not corruption, it is the way the law works.

    Few of your comments mention lay members, who have an equal voice in decision making, yet they have now been excluded from unfair dismissal cases by diktat from the government and the fees have been introduced to deter people from applying to the ET. I used to tell my trade union colleagues never to forget that the lay members have an equal vote with the Judge, that they can outvote him or her, and sometimes they do just that. I have always imagined that lay members have a lot more to say behind closed doors than they do in open court and I always recommend that people ask for a full tribunal to hear their case, and ask for full written reasons at the end of it. They at least know what it is like in the workplace whereas many Judges have never worked outside of law.

    So, is the system corrupt, I would say definitely not, but when claimants are less likely to be represented, when claimants have no access to the documents that could make or break their case, when claimants are threatened a week before a hearing that if they win, the respondent will claim costs, the claimant is by the nature of the process less likely to win against a respondent that is drowning in policies and can afford a barrister. But then, who ever said that law is fair, it has always advantaged people with money and power and the only way this can be changed is if barristers were appointed by the state, so that both sides were equally represented, but that will never happen.

    • Alan M Dransfield

      You make some good points but more often than not the TRUTH is never established by the ET Panels. Ditto at FOIA Tribunals which are run very similar to ET’s.
      When Joe Bloggs goes to an Industrial Tribunal armed with witness statements in their favour and the Employers are lying thru’ their teeth and STILL WIN.

      In my particular case which I relied upon PIDA 98 (whistleblowing) and showed documents to the ET Judge that I had raised serious H&S matters some 3 years before I was made “redundant” and the ET Judge claimed I raised the H&S issues after my redundancy notice was given to me.She must have had a maths degree??!!

      More often than not the ET&EAT /FOI decsions are made in the old school tie wine bar BEFORE the Hearing.Ditto ref the FOIA.

      I am currently before the Court of Appeal on my FOIA and at Strasburgh with my ET redress.No doubt in my mind the ET/EAT/FOI Courts are rotten to the core.

    • libby

      Ann,
      Firstly I only had a judge sitting on my ET.
      I understood as part of this government cut backs the 3 panel tribunals were all cut to just a judge sitting.

      Secondly With regard to your comments about we might know the other side are lying, but how does the judge know that?
      Well I will give you an example.

      Cross-Examination Question to Respondants witness:- How did you manage to get promoted instead of the claimant ?
      Answer:- Because I have an XY qualification and had been doing the job for over 3 years. The Job description said anyone with XY qualification and over 3 years experience could apply for the job (…. at this point he directed the tribunals attention to the JD in the evidence bundle and read out the relevant sections about XY qualification and OVER 3 YEARS EXPERIENCE being an Essential Criteria for applying for the job.)

      Question:- Thank you for that Mr ZZ. Now can you tell me when did you achieve this XY qualification, and at which university?
      Answer:- Er, well, I didn’t actually go to univeristy,
      Question:- Ok, but when did you achieve the XY Qualification ?
      Answer;- Er, well, er ….I don’t actually have the XY qualification.

      Question:- Well, with regard to the OVER 3 years experience required. When did you start doing this job?
      Answer:- I started doing the job in the January,
      Question: – and when were you promoted?
      Answer:- I was promoted in the October.

      Statement from my Barrister:- But Mr ZZ, that is not OVER 3 years, that is no where near 3 years.

      Silence from Witness.

      Statement from my Barrister:- So Mr ZZ you have just lied to the Tribunal! You said the Job Description required that you had XY qualification and over 3 years experience before you were able to apply for the job. And you have told this Tribunal that you DID have an XY qualification AND over 3 years experience. But you are now admitting you don’t have either the XY qualification OR the 3 years experience.

      Silence from Witness

      Would you not agree this shows:-
      1) Their witness lying
      2) The judge being made aware (if they could not work it out for themself) that their witness was lying.
      3) Their lying witness has still not provided a satisfactory answer as to how HE managed to get promoted.

      I could give another 20 example of where their witnesses said things which were shown to be a complete lie.

      It was just like amateur hour….
      A complete joke…
      Then the judgement said the judge accepted their accounts of everything.
      I proved with documentary evidence every word I said was true, and my Barrister caught them out lying in front of the judge – and flagging up the fact they had just lied.

      Or do judges have a different definition of a lie than I do ?

  59. stephen roden

    I recently attended Southampton et. In hindsight I should have accepted respondents offer which proved they were guilty of wrongdoing supported by an admission of procedure faults in witness statement I felt this was a no lose situation.The respondent lied and on many occasions couldn’t answer judges questions. My case was for unfair dismissal regarding redundancy. I was told before I went on holiday my working hours was likely to be reduced. I returned from holiday after 2 weeks and received a letter of redundancy. In respondents witness statement they admitted they should have held a meeting with me having been selected for redundancy. This was also agreed by their solicitor and she said there had been numerous flaws in redundancy procedure. There was no consultation, I was not offered chance to appeal my redundancy, I was unable to have reasonable time off work to seek alternative employment. My employer failed to offer alternative employment options and I received just 1 weeks notice not statutory 2 weeks. Having left the room for judge to decide their solicitor asked me for wage slips to work out remedy as she was convinced they had lost. Upon return judge waffled about other cases that only confused all present ending up that I had been fairly selected for redundancy it was an unfair dismissal, case dismissed. Everyone looked at each other not knowing what had happened and what to do. We all decided to leave in disbelief. I have since asked for written details of judgement and asked for judgement to be reconsidered. I will return with judges’ decision but I’m not holding my breath.

  60. Abdul

    If it is so difficult for employment judges to spot who lies to a degree that it becomes a lottery as to their decision, why on earth do we pay them 6-figure-salary ? But don’t worry, do feel safe and secure : it is not a matter of judges making mistakes and simply not being able or not being sharp enough to spot the liars. It is not a matter of a low IQ of employment judges. Employment Judges know very well which side lies (usually the Respondent) and which side tells the truth (usually the Claimant) : I believe that their ‘mistaken decision’ is simply the result of corruption, usually of an advance decision to make the Respondent win whatever.
    This corruption does not need to be the result of financial bribes, though in Britain those should never be ruled out through old-fashioned sentiment, induced by our government’s propaganda, that ‘our country is just so honest’ or that ‘we are not a third world country and bribes to judges cannot be happening here’. They can happen, and we need a National, Centralized, Specialized, Independent Police Unit to investigate allegations of corruption and dishonesty against British Judges. Currently British Judges are above the law and there is no mechanism or body to investigate allegations of corruption against judges (including against Employment Judges). In any case, corrupt determinations by Employment Tribunals can be the result of friendships, of behind-the-scene lobbying for the Respondents, etc. Bribes are just one potential reason or facet of corruption among a few others.
    One solution to the problem of lies by Respondents and their witnesses, lies which become not only a tactics but a strategy due to the full support given to the liars by cheating Employment Judges, is to introduce the use of lie detectors. How many times have you heard an honest Claimant saying to the Employment Judge :”Let’s have a lie detector test on me and on the other side”, which the Employment Judge either rejects with contempt or at best ignores ? The reasons why lie detectors have a bad name, of being ‘inaccurate and liable to be outwitted by certain people’, are all fraudulent. There are really two reasons why they have this bad but unjustified reputation, maliciously spread by the establishment : (1) Because their use will prevent judges from being able to cheat against those whom the Government or the Judges want to cheat against (2) Because the ruling establishment, including judges, can themselves be caught cheating and lying by a lie-detector just like you and me. The establishment do not want this horrible feeling of vulnerability, of potentially being caught in their lies and wrong-doings. So the establishment did work hard to spread around false claims against lie detectors. The truth is, if there are any weaknesses in lie detector tests, there are means of eliminating those weaknesses, rather than throwing the baby with the tub water. I tell you, statistically lie detector tests are more likely to bring the correct result than the cheating, dishonest determination of any Employment Tribunal.
    In the battle against corruption within the Employment Tribunal system, we cannot rely on people from the legal profession to do the fighting for us. First thing, any solicitor or barrister who will help the fight will lose his 1000 next cases. He/she will be simply be annihilated as a solicitor. This is the truth, not the sanctimonious nonsense which lawyers will tell you. The second reason is, that solicitors and barristers have a vested interest in hinting that most Claimants lose because they did not use a solicitor or barrister. So it is not in their interest to agree that the Employment Judge was corrupt. They would rather promote the line of argument that probably Claimants have lost because they did not ask the right questions when cross-examining, that their witness statement was not well-written, that the Claim Form itself was not enough well written and focused, that the Claimant’s Concluding Speech was not well focused. It is in their interests to transfer the blame for losing the case to the victim of judicial corruption. My own opinion is that most people lose due to corruption, not due to this alleged incompetence in conducting the case.

  61. Abdul

    I am not a solicitor and I have no legal qualifications. But here is one thing which I have learnt for myself (not written as an advice to others).

    If I live outside London and I am in a situation that I want to appeal to the EAT against a judgment of a local Employment Tribunal, I shall not use for the appeal either the services or even the advice of a local solicitor or barrister. I believe that the chances are that a local solicitor/barrister will be too scared to be associated with a win in the EAT against a local judge, or even to be associated with giving advice which might lead to a local decision being overturned. There may be here and there a few brave solicitors/barristers, but I believe that the majority will be scared. They know how much Employment Judges hate their judgment being declared void (even if not for reason of ‘bias’), and that Employment Judges are usually highly revengeful creatures, in addition to the fact that people believe that many of them are dishonest. They also know that it is not just the specific Employment Judge whose judgment might be reversed : local Employment Judges tend to act as a gang, or a pack of wolves, one supporting another. So your solicitor/barrister may well be afraid of his/her firm losing its next 1000 cases before the local Employment Tribunal, thus being wiped out (clients will stop employing his/her firm). His/her finances are more important to your local solicitor/barrister than your case, or from the idea of justice. He/she may still try to give you advice, in order to get your money, but what will be the quality of this advice ?

    I believe that most Claimants can successfully represent themselves, and that they will do a job not less good than any solicitor/barrister. I believe that mostly they lose because Employment Judges cheat, not because their presentation, cross-examination or conduct, or knowledge, have been faulty. But if I were to employ a solicitor/barrister, I shall go directly to one in London, not to a local one. More than that, to be on the safe side, I shall avoid employing someone from a London firm which has a branch in my own city/town, lest they will be afraid for the future of the business of the local branch, which might become a sitting duck for revenge by local Employment Judges.

  62. DAVID

    Hi

    Well my employer made false allegation against me, they couldnt sack me because I recorded them lying about polite exchanges. THEN THEY FINALLY GOT ME ON THEIR 18TH ATTEMPT I was then sent to the Respondents Occupational Health to be assessed by a DR. I recorded the assessment without her knowledge. I have Depression, Chronic Headaches & IBS due to 5 years of fighting these spineless creeps. NEVER guess what this DR makes out that I couldnt be understood as I swore and made aggressive threats repeatedly, claimed I lived at home with my parents (moved out 15 years ago & told her that I had my own place & business) She claims I said I that I was to sick to even be bothered looking for work. In only four pages I found 40+ of malicious lies & FICTIONAL THREATS OF VIOLENCE… things that would get you arrested if they were true. Apparently she summarised that I I had a Paranoid Personality Disorder and wrongly believe people are making false allegations against me when in actual fact they are trying to help and be my friend!!! thats right ive recorded this witch doing what my employer had been doing!!So I get called to a hearing stating my Disability claim is abusive and vexactious and should be thrown out and costs awarded to the Respondent based on this corrupt report. I dont swear once and its very polite and boring. She was claiming I saidf I suffer from anorexia also?!? Im 14stone lol So as soon as the Judge finds out I can prove this DRs lying its immediately passed to be looked at by another Judge, at another hearing (this honestly lasted 15 mins) Then the Judge refuses to acknowledge the Perjury of this Nurse Ratched Lector like Psycho who is just making up crap without worrying one bit. Judge refused to accept the recording proving that the DR and Respondent knowinly perverted the course of justice, corruptely derailed a genuine claim and commited perjury in Court. I even asked em to record the hearing. Judge came back refusing to listen to the Recording or read the transcript!!! Then claimed that I made no formal request to have the recording played. I had emailed and continually verbally asked during the hearing when I could play it. I jhad huge speakers sitting on my desk for christ sake. This Judge previously stated it is not her Jurisdiction to find anyone guilty of perjury and I asked for her to be removed from my case. I was given 9 days to provide a GP report before this Judge was on at me threatening to strike out the claim.. even when they hadnt even wrote and sent me the order!!! WHAT IS MOST CONCERNING is that they will freely close ranks especially when its the MOJ judging the MOJ. Also coverts recordings are not automatically inadmissable. Christ I wish I had recorded the Judge to highlight how disgusting the process is.

  63. DAVID

    PS I was given 9 days to provide a GP Report asking specific questions made out by a Judge. I was not told what these wre and they would be sent to me to give to my GP. Withing 9 days (even though Im repeatedly calling asking when I should recieve the order as my GP is on standby and willoing to complete it… im assured that its being dealt with, 28 day policy, it hasnt been written never mind sent… next day letter from Judge complaining that Im taking to long providing the answers to questions they havent sent yet!!! Unbelievable. Refused to sift my case for a couple of months to allow my new solicitor to get up to speed. Refused as it would cause unneccesary dealys… then they allowed the Respondent 13 months to submit a corrupt and completely fictional abusive report. 15 months to communicate it to a judge. This kind of behaviour is mental abuse or “gas lighting.” If I was in the DRs /Respondents position & had been caught acting like that… Id be screwed… hit with courts costs etc etc.I HAVE NO FAITH OR CONFIDENCE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM. Apparently a Judge could have had videos of kids being abused but wont accept em as the abuser didnt give their expressed permission. God knows what happens to the truly vulnerable who this systems is supposed to protect.

  64. Abdul

    I say the following by way of positive suggestion as to how improve the situation in the ETs and EAT, to reduce the incidence of alleged corruption.
    Almost a year ago (18 March 2014) I had a controversy with Naomi about the meaning of ‘bias’. Naomi considered it no more than ‘a state of mind’, or to use her ambiguous phrasing “Bias isn’t criminal; it’s part of the human condition” (her reply of 18 March 2014 to my comment of same date, on this site). My original attitude, which has not changed one bit, is that a ‘biased judge’ is a criminal. Otherwise we, the small people, are paying 6-figure salaries to judges just to regularly cheat against us. I believe that the place of a biased judge is :
    (A) In prison.
    (B) If this is not possible (because the Government love biased or cheating judges), at least that he/she would be dismissed as a judge [and would not be allowed afterwards to work as a solicitor, having shown – so I believe – unacceptable dishonesty (despite this dishonesty being very acceptable to the Government, especially to the Ministry of Justice)].
    (C) If the Government insists on leaving biased judges in their jobs, at least that it will publish a list of judges who were formally convicted of bias, a list which will be kept up-to-date all the time, and that every single judge who has been formally found guilty (let’s say, by the Employment Appeal Tribunal) of bias, will be obliged to notify the Claimant in writing, not less than one month before the Hearing, that he has this ‘conviction for bias’. I believe that we cannot except any excuse of ‘We do not know that far in advance which cases he is going to sit’ – so let them know ! Let them plan his cases. And on top of that, let the judge tell the two sides that fact, about having such a formal conviction, at the beginning of a Hearing. Why this is just so important ? – because you prepare your strategy and tactics one way, as a Claimant, if you think that the Judge is going to be an honest judge, and you prepare yourself, and conduct yourself, totally differently once you believe that this judge has a history of ‘bias’, what you believe to be considerable cheating in favour of Respondents.
    (D) More than that : let the Government keep and publish constantly updated statistics about each Employment Judge in Britain, as to how many times the Claimants won under him and how many times the Respondents won under him. Also : how many times he slapped costs on Claimants, and how many times he slapped costs on Respondents. There is no such thing as ‘local knowledge’, simply does not exist even among solicitors, not to mention self-represented Claimants. More than that, I believe that I have spotted a trend : the Ministry of Justice sends biased Employment Judges to judge at random all over the country (is it that the Ministry of Justice hopes that they would teach the art of bias to local judges ?).
    (E) To prevent a situation that the EAT, out of solidarity with biased judges, is avoiding finding them ‘biased’ when considering appeals which claim bias, we need to introduce one more cost-free (to both sides) judicial court to supervise the EAT (not High-Court, but another cost free layer). If this court finds that the EAT unjustifiably failed to declare an Employment Judge ‘biased’, the particular judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal will be sacked. We need to put some sanction against potentially crooked judges, and some fear in their heart.
    (F) Similarly, this suggested extra judicial layer will have the power to sack the President of the Employment Tribunals, if it finds that his treatment of complaints against EJs is too friendly to badly behaved or dishonest Employment Judges.
    If Naomi does not want to believe that bias is a crime, but rather that it is ‘a state of mind’, or in her words “it’s part of the human condition”, I wish I could see how she would have felt/reacted, had she have herself, personally, been a Claimant, and finding out that she was being given an Employment Judge who had about him this human condition of bias. Anyhow, I and many others who wrote to this site refuse to accept that biased judges are a fact of life with which we need to learn to live, or that submitting a claim to an Employment Tribunal against some powerful organization or manager should almost automatically mean that the Claimant is going to find himself/herself slapped with costs in 5 or 6 figures.

  65. Douglas

    I apologise for repeating myself.

    But, I agree with the sentiments of Micheal and Naomi in that the Employment Tribunal is not corrupt as in an evil, cheating or scandalous way.

    However if they read their own comments they agree that it is corrupt in the more modern sense, as in a corrupt hard disc (meaning broken or not working properly)

    Whatever you care to call it the broken system is open to a raft of abuse, mistakes, misjudgments, misuse, etc leaving very dissatisfied users who cannot control their anger and excusably with all sympathy see the system as far more than broken, being corrupted in the evil sense.

    I’ve read many documents of judicial conduct and others relating to past judgments etc.

    My conclusion for what it is worth..

    The tribunals and courts of this country are driven by capitalistic bullying and political views most of the rules selflessly favour the rich after all they usually write them.

    As John Lennon sang “we’re all f***ing peasants as far as I can see”

    “Working Class Hero”

    As soon as you’re born they make you feel small
    By giving you no time instead of it all
    ‘Til the pain is so big you feel nothing at all

    They hurt you at home and they hit you at school
    They hate you if you’re clever and they despise a fool
    ‘Til you’re so f***ing crazy you can’t follow their rules

    When they’ve tortured and scared you for 20 odd years
    Then they expect you to pick a career
    When you can’t really function, you’re so full of fear

    Keep you doped with religion, and sex, and T.V.
    And you think you’re so clever and classless and free
    But you’re still f***ing peasants as far as I can see

    There’s room at the top they are telling you still
    But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
    If you want to be like the folks on the hill

    A working class hero is something to be
    If you want to be a hero well just follow me

    John Lennon

    • Abdul

      “But, I agree with the sentiments of Micheal and Naomi in that the Employment Tribunal is not corrupt as in an evil, cheating or scandalous way”.
      I am sure that Michael and Naomi are very pleased that you support their view, as you are the only one who does it.

      By the way, in your previous post (thank you for your support !) you suggest writing to the JCIO. I complained, as a first thing, about longisg list of criminal conduct of 7 judges / lay members of tribunals. Such accusations, if proven true and had they been made against me, for example, would mean that I go to prison for a good long time. Why should I, as an example, be investigated by a police unit and put on criminal trial, but not judges ? Why would they have the privilege that if they behaved as criminals (which I believe about them but which remains formally unproven as long as there is no formal police investigation), their behaviour will be examined and investigated not by a police unit, but by this internal, secret disciplinary unit which has up to now no track record of convicting even one judge of real corruption, when the country is full of people claiming widespread corruption ? These are members of the establishment appointed to get judges out of trouble : they are there to help the judges, not the honest victims of the judges. And why, tell me : do they have any experience in criminal investigations ? What are their qualifications for such a job ? And why is it that there is this time limit, I think one year, on reporting to them the alleged misconduct, when it is normally accepted in society that criminal activity has no time limit with expiry beyond it ? It took me more than one year to discover the facts which I know now (it is not that the gang told me those facts themselves).

      “The tribunals and courts of this country are driven by capitalistic bullying and political views most of the rules selflessly favour the rich after all they usually write them.”
      Bullying is not capitalistic or socialist : bullying is a matter of power, and is done by all elites and establishments. It is a very important element of self-preservation of any ruling elite, together with cheating and robbery.

      You say that the rules favour the crooks, favour our rulers. You are correct about plenty of rules. However, the fact is, there are very many laws, rules and precedents which intend to and should favour the honest small citizen, but judges ignore them and they pass judgments which are diametrically opposed to the laws, rules, binding precedents etc, and higher courts continue and strengthen this process of cheating.

      A broken system, as claimed by you, should account for three, or ten, cases. But we talk here about thousands of cases of cheating. In my opinion, this can only be described as corruption.

      • Douglas

        Abdul…

        I have been censored, warned and threatened, by the blog owners and I saw sense and reason in their arguments and agreed with what was said, as a law abiding citizen I will toe the line, little children should be see and not heard, we’re all effing peasants etc!!!

        • Abdul

          Douglas, I had some of my comments censored just as well, and for no apparent reason. However, they did allow a great deal to get through. Good luck with whatever campaign which you pursue. If we ever get a Public Enquiry into Employment Tribunals, we shall still have to fight to be heard, as I am sure that the establishment will try to limit witnesses to “professionals”, i.e. solicitors, barristers, judges.

  66. Douglas

    Abdul

    Did you write to the JCIO?

    In accordance with the Bangalore Principles of Judicial conduct and the UK guide to Judicial conduct of 2013 it is a no brainer! I agree this Judge should be sacked and so should many more….

    Why should a Judge get a six figure job for life when they are responsible for upholding the rules of zero hours contracts, where people are bullied into unrewarding work by government and employers (who basically want slave labour), paying the minimum wage then docking pay if the till is short or when customers walk off without paying (Pizzashed company policy)

    Do we need these Judges?

    Government has many other decision makers in the DWP (ESA, IIDB etc) who I would guess get a far more modest salary than a ET Judge after all what is a Judge other than an overrated decision maker.

    You can count on my support for your public inquiry into the conduct of these Judges and Judges in general they have had it too good for to long and what do we have? extremism.

    • Marcus

      Douglas: Thanks for posting your ET docs online. I’m sorry you were unsuccessful and appreciate the stress you must have been caused. I resigned constructively in May; employer just declined ACAS conciliation, so I’m now facing the ET (contrived allegation of misconduct; bullying; multiple breaches of the DPA; disability discrimination). I have long-standing generalised anxiety disorder (medically discharged from the military because of and pensioned for several years ago): not a good basis psychologically for a fight with my ex-employer, and this business has exacerbated my condition (like you, it seems).

      I’m disappointed they refused to settle. ACAS/union said what I asked for was very reasonable, and because I qualify for fee remission due to a vastly reduced income (having lost my job!), I fully intend to go all the way. I was asking for less than the employer will almost certainly have to pay to defend themselves.

      I know constructive dismissal is hard to show and I expect to lose (though I believe my case is sound – it’s that the bar’s set high). I hope the employer, when they know I’m serious by registering with the ET, will decide it’s not in their interest not to offer a modest settlement.

      Glad to have found this site!

      Best wishes all.

  67. Abdul

    Douglas,
    I made a mistake : it is only 3 months, not even one year, from the date of incident that JCIO will investigate. If I make a crime, the police will investigate, hopefully, even 60 years after it was committed ; when the Judges are the criminals, 3 months is the time limit for submitting a complaint…

    Brilliant lyrics of John Lennon.

  68. RabbiT

    I have experienced the ET and would share that I found it corrupt.

    As a secret court it’s true activities are not seen. Same with all secret courts and offices of government and judicial complaint – they are all corrupt as found in my many years of experience acting as a lay advisor in matters of welfare rights.

    I was forced to approach the ET because my employer was unwilling to process a grievance regarding breach of contract, as raised by me.

    My employer now sought to dismiss me for filing with the ET under the Sex Discrimination Act.

    Employees doing so are given very specific protection in law, that protection clearly violated by my employer as confirmed by my solicitor.

    The ET’s preliminary decision was that I had not disclosed a matter which was within their remit.

    I discussed this with the ET Appeal body who agreed with me and advised I could appeal any decision of the ET but we agreed that as such was preliminary decision, doing so was without much merit and would have wasted my time and public money.

    The point was made – I was not going to obtain a fair hearing.

    Having begun civil court proceedings to likewise sue my employer for damages, the issue was settled out of court but I deduce the ET acted illegally because…well my employer was HM gov.

    Knowing the parties I suspect my employer had a conversation with the ET and convinced them to smooth the matter over.

    In the UK the law is but a matter of politics.

  69. Peter Lewis

    I have a very particular experience of Employment Tribunals. Look at the following or type “UK employment tribunal riddled with errors” in google and it is the first one to come up.

  70. Abdul

    One reason why the media will not take up the campaign against corrupt employment judges, or against corrupt British judges of all courts and jurisdictions, is the libel law. Britain built, over the centuries, a deliberate system to ruin financially anyone who dares attack the establishment : the libel law. In some countries they kill those who dare challenge their bosses or superiors from the ruling class ; in Britain they are fraudulently being financially destroyed. It is not only the ridiculous compensation awarded (remember the Jeffrey Archer case ?), it is the criminal level of legal costs awarded to the winning side, sometimes getting into 7 figures. As newspapers are all in financial difficulties, they avoid investigative journalism and taking risks. A story about Employment Tribunals and Employment Judges will look to them a big financial risk. After all, if a libel case comes to court, it is not going to be judged by neutral people : it is to be judged by the colleagues of the Employment Judges, that is : by other judges, who have exactly the same interests. The media understand that also they themselves will not get justice from the courts. After all, the courts were devised to control the populace on behalf of the establishment, not to give justice.
    And then the media owners would say to their editors :”Taking such massive financial risks – what for ? It is not that the country will be very interested in reading how an Employment Judge cheats”. And they will be right for two reasons. The first is that most people care about a problem only when it affects them personally, not before that. The second is that an Employment Judge does not need much theoretical or detailed writing to commit his/her cheat : all that it takes is just writing a fraudulent Judgment. To explain the cheats, to give details of all the laws-rules-regulations-precedents broken by the Employment Judge, all the facts and arguments deliberately omitted by the alleged crook, to explain his/her various techniques of cheating as used in each Judgment and conduct of a case, takes very long : many pages. People may not have the patience to read it, and may not be able to understand it. After all, for most people it is much easier to understand the photograph on Page 3 than to read a treatise on matters of law.
    But there is one more reason for reluctance of media people to expose corruption of Employment Judges and other judges. There are a lot of judges and lawyers in Britain, in many positions. Our corrupt laws where made so as to turn us into a top-heavy country in respect of lawyers. Therefore it is most unlikely that any newspaperman, editor or reporter or moderator of comments, does not have at least one lawyer in his immediate family, or at least as a close neighbour.

  71. Peter Rowe

    Why would a corrupt judge (who is really a barrister) report any wrong doing too the police. He is corrupt he is part of the corruption.

  72. Abdul

    Sometimes the establishment do not care about things that they should care about. We saw this week how there was enough evidence to make a company not to allow a co-pilot to fly a plane due to depression, a recurring or chronic mental illness, but the information in their hands seems not to have been acted upon (according to news reports). Surely, people suffering from depression should not be pilots, GPs, or judges.
    There are no precautions, as far as I know, to prevent people who had depression from serving as Employment Judges. There should be.

    Alcoholics, current or past, should not serve as judges, at least not as Employment Judges. There was this famous case in Scotland, judged by an alcoholic Employment Judge who later either committed suicide or died of his alcoholism, which resulted in a judgment whose honesty is challenged on the internet to this day.

    There are no safeguards against drunks serving as Employment Judges or lay members of Tribunals, but there should be. How about surprise blood tests to judges 365 days of the year by a specialized team j? Let it be the same for judges as it is for athletes.

    And similarly, judges who have been found guilty of bias (as a minimum a chronic, recurring illness, if not criminality, which I believe that it is) should be, as a minimum, disqualified from ever being a judge. Again, nothing like that happens, and governments seem to love and cherish biased judges.

    Honest claimants come to Employment Tribunals, and they do not know what creatures are judging them.

  73. Naomi

    We are impressed – and in some cases moved – by the amount of heartfelt debate this post has generated. We do feel the need to make our limits clear, at this point.

    Although we’re happy to see robust disagreement and argument on this site, there are limits to what we are prepared to host here. We will delete or edit to remove any of the following:

    1. threats
    2. abuse
    3. anything we think may be criminal, or amount to incitement to crime
    4. adverse comment against any named individual.

    Please note that the last is not restricted to defamatory material. We will remove any adverse comment about any named or identifiable individual. That is because we don’t feel able to devote time and attention to deciding whether comments are defamatory or not; and in any case, personal attacks are just not the kind of thing we want to host.

    Please do keep within these limits. We haven’t yet felt the need to block anyone permanently from commenting, and we’d rather not.

  74. Edd

    The Employment tribunal system is corrupt. At the site bellow https://sites.google.com/site/cemkumar/manchestermetropolitanuniversityseniorma is a case dealing with such corruption. The claimant did not attend and had findings made in his favour. However the respondents appealled and were successful having a QC and part -time Chairman of the Birmingham tribunal leading the case they now claimed he did not know the issues eventhough they had an open goal and a CMD had clarified the issues. Later after overthrowing the decission the Counsel informed the claimant at another hearing that he and ET judge had spent five days identifying the issues of the case. The case laws did not allow such an appeal but to save embarrassment of so many establishment figures the claimant had to be sacrificied and latter removed from his position in the follow up cases. It was claimed that a million pounds was spent in the appeal to get the right decision .

  75. Abdul M

    have just found this thread and thought I should share my current experience at the Employment Tribunal against my former employer who I faced discrimination and was unfairly dismissed whilst suffering with Depression. My claim for unfair dismissal was struck out as I do not have two years of service. But my other two claims for Discrimination still remain at the Tribunal.
    In my current experience in The ET, the case I have brought forward for Religious and Disability discrimination has taken a complete turn which was very unexpected I must say! It has become the issue to prove that I am indeed a disabled ‘person’ of which a person suffering with Depression is regarded to be, under new changes in the Equality Act 2010. This should be the least worry for the judge and respondent and should be focused more on my case (incidents/descriptions) of discrimination. Thus far, I have on record provided both the ET and Respondent upto four letters from my GP giving clear medical evidences to prove my mental health impairment. But they are still none the wiser, am I missing something here! Someone please help me out here because it is turning out to be a different picture that the one I had expected of being at a Employment Tribunal Service.
    I have since attended two Preliminary Hearings and the judge has rejected my recent GP letter, that was ordered by the judge at the first hearing- which stated that I DO fufil the mental health disability disorder legislation, but according to the judge, after some ruthless persuasion from the Respondents defence Lawyers, it was ordered that I should now receive a (private) Medical Examination under the cost of the Respondent. All the fuss just to satisfy their definition of me being a Disabled person, when my case has far more important and interesting things to expose my former employers of the mistreatment and discrimination I faced! It seems like a long road ahead. But i’m guessing that the judge is prolonging this process, am I right in thinking so? But he also acknowledges I am unrepresented.
    However, in the meantime, my case was accepted at the Tribunal of being 4.5 months out of time as I could not apply due to my mental illness and now the Respondent’s lawyers are trying to have it struck out because it was filed out of time. Furthermore, the Respondents Lawyers have now written to me- putting me under notice to pay their entire costs if my case is to be dismissed at the Tribunal. They have stated that my case has no prospect of success at the Tribunal.
    In this regard, they have also insulted me in their letter which they state the following:
    Pursuant to Section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (the “EqA”), an employment Tribunal shall consider a complaint unless it is presented to the Tribunal before the end of the period of three months starting with the dated of the act to which the complaint relates, subject to the rules introduced by mandatory Early Conciliation (“EC”) with ACAS.
    You were dismissed from the Respondent in January 2014 and your complaints relate to incidents allegedly occurring during employment and your appeal, which was submitted on 28 January 2014. Therefore, the last date for your case to be submitted for EC was April 2014, yet you did not do so until 3 October 2014, and on this basis, it was filed approx 4.5 out of time. (but the Tribunal accepted it being out of time, and your politics and attempts to manipulate the case away from a ET Court can be smelt a mile away I thinks!!)

    The burden of proving that it would be just and equitable to extend the time limit for the submission of these claims rests on you as the Claimant and this test will need to be satisfied as a preliminary issue before the merits of the claim are even considered.
    The Respondents lawyers have been nothing but a bully with me causing me all levels of distress and anxieties and this is not helping my depression either. They have now placed me under duress by putting me under notice in their most recent correspondence. In an attempt to scare me, they have requested for me to withdraw my case before the next hearing date, later in the year- where in reality, they are supposed to arrange a medical examination for me before the next hearing takes place!

    They write further:
    We write to advice you that under Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, an Employment Tribunal Judge may make an order for costs against a party when it is considered that, a claim is misconceived and that it has no reasonable prospect of success.
    For the reasons set out below, we believe that an Employment Tribunal will find that your claims of race and religion/belief discrimination are misconceived and we believe they be withdrawn immediately. There is no mention of Disability here!
    On this basis, we believe that you have little scope to persuade the Tribunal that an amendment to your claim should be accepted and that these additional matters will be considered as anything other than background information.

    Costs:
    The respondent contends that your claims have no reasonable prospects of success for the reasons set out above. In other words, it is our firm view that our client will be able to successfully defend your claim.
    Under the Triubnal Rules of Procedure 2013 referred to above, the Tribunal has the power to order you to meet the entire costs of the Respondent in defending your claim, if it decides that your claim had no reasonable prosepects of success yet you continued to pursue it and/or bringing the proceedings you have acted unreasonable.
    Given this risk, we consider it necessary to inform you of the notable weakenssess in your claim and our intentions in relation to costs at this stage.

    Opportunity to Withdraw:
    Notwithstanding the strength of its position, our client is keen to ensure that it acts reasonable and offers you the opportunity to withdraw your claim at this stage, in return for which our client will agree not seek an award against you for the costs incurred in defending the claim thus far, which are substantial. (boring!!). You will note that the parties have already been required to attend two preliminary hearings, for which our client instructed Counsel.
    However, if instead you decide to proceed to a hearing and the Tribunal eventually dismisses your claim, we reserve the right to draw this letter to the attention of the Tribunal in support of an application for the entire costs incurred by our client in defending your claim (yawn).
    Please note this letter is headed “without prejudice save as to costs.” This means that you must not refer to it in any correspondence to the Tribunal or any statements or submissions until the Tribunal has reached a decision regarding your claim and the issue of costs is being addressed.
    As you are not represented, we strongly advise you to take independent legal advice on the implications of this letter. If you do not wish, or cannot afford to pay for legal advice, certain organisations including your local Citizen’s Advice Bureau, will be able to provide legal advice free of charge.
    We are sending this letter merely to convey our client’s offer and because should we make a costs application against you, we are legally obliged to take steps to make you aware of this in advance of the Hearing.
    All I can see and notice is that Tesco’s lawyers are now trying to manipulate the incidents I have described in detail for my claim. They claim I have submitted more claims (on top) to the ones I first submitted on my ET1 form and have all been submitted late, for this I will lose my case and need to cough of their costs. Bullies! I was going into more detail of my case and they are trying to stitch me up in claiming I have new claims brought to the surface! How obnoxious and scandalous!

    Basically, Tesco’s lawyers are trying to make it clear and put it across to the Tribunal that I have now made further claims within the description of my further Better Particulars (“FBPs”) which were not mentioned in the ET1 claim form which was submitted to the Tribunal. I was going into more detail with my better particulars as was requested by the judge in the first preliminary hearing- which was to state each discrimination incident and this is what I had done, giving all the background information of my discrimination incidents, yet I am being criticised, and my claim being discredited for filing these in very late and for making new claims!! This is enough for anyone to go round the bend, this is why we have a judge ladies and gentleman! phew! All are tactics to have my case struck out.

  76. Mr C

    Whether or not the ET system is ‘corrupt’ there is no doubt in my mind that it is not fit for purpose, is ineptly managed and has lost its way. As it stands it serves neither the interests of employees (or former employees) or even employers but rather the lawyers on both sides of the table and sitting on bench. My advice to colleagues who at various times have asked my advice on whether to being various actions in the ET is to avoid getting involved with the system if at all possible and only do so as a last resort. In the distant past, I had the misfortune to take my case to ET and won (partially) and won fully at appeal at the ET but other than for the principle involved it wasn’t worth it. The lower Tribunal itself was inept, biased and misapplied itself on the facts and the law. Fortunately – and somewhat rarely I understand – the EAT shared the same view but I believe only did so due to the ‘interesting’ issues of public law involved in finding, amongst other things, that the original Tribunals decision was ‘perverse’.

    Many years later I’m now back in the tribunal system against my wishes- on the one hand advising an otherwise unrepresented relative and chasing a rogue employer of mine on a redundancy matter – and I’m really shocked to see how after all these years things have barely improved. The new fees regime makes things worse. What other ‘public service’ – and yes the courts system is a public service- would get away with charging such high fees for the poor quality of provision on offer?

    The whole thing is a lawyers’ jamboree who are, in most cases, the only winners. I’d be disciplined or struck off in my own profession if I were to conduct my affairs in the manner I’ve seen lawyers get away at the ET. When politicians spout off in the media about ‘improving’ workers rights they fail to mention that the said workers often cannot enforce those rights without subjecting themselves to risking the expensive, risky and dysfunctional tribunal process.

  77. Taswar Iqbal

    I have not read all the threads on this page as they are very lengthy after fighting and going through mental hell having ending up in hospital for nine weeks I think the judges do try to be fair but when you are up against the best barristers and solicitors in the country at times especially when on your own you have very little chance of winning even though mine was a strait forward case so you would think. Unless you are fully verse with the legal system and understand law and are mentally prepared which I wasn’t you have very little chance of winning the system is very unfair and very much unbiased towards the employer who have the ability to manipulate the situation. Anyway good luck to those of you strong enough to fight this unfair system.

  78. Martin Broomhead

    Define corrupt. I have several complaints against Employment Judges which can only be dealt with after appeals have been heard. There will soon be a judgment published on the E.A.T. website concerning a costs order made against us which has to be seen to be believed. Nothing more can be said as it is sub judice.

  79. Martin Broomhead

    Define corrupt. There will soon be posted an EAT judgment concerning a costs order made against Employment Rights Advice which has to be seen in order to be believed. Nothing more can be said because of sub judice.

    • Mark Eaves

      Interesting. When the judgment is posted, is there any chance you can tell us the name of the case so that we can look it up and read it ?

      Incidentally, your comment prompted me to look up the posting of a Rule 3(10) judgment in my own case in March 2013. It doesn’t appear to be there. Probably just as well if it has been omitted in view of some of its content ( ref. my post here dated 14 December 2014).

  80. Martin Broomhead

    Employment Judges are either failed barristers or burnt out solicitors who never practised employment law before they became judges, that is why the standard is so low and why they error on the side of caution.

    • Abdul

      Martin Broomfield, in 3 lines you make a good number of serious, critical mistakes.
      (1) It is not a matter of “the standard is so low” : the issue is corruption and dishonesty. Employment judges see their aim as perfecting corruption, dishonesty and cheating – and in this they achieve a very high standard.
      (2) As long as the aim of Employment Judges is to cheat in favour of the powerful, it really does not matter whether they appoint an experienced solicitor whose expertise is employment law to be an Employment Judge, or a car mechanic. As long as both agree to cheat for the Government, the difference will not be material.
      (3) By the way, it may be that even much lower quality of IQ and understanding is being deliberately appointed as lay members : this issue should be investigated. But again, this will be of no significance : as long as the main aim of the lay member of an ET is to make the Establishment, the powerful and the rich win, it makes no difference if a lay member has a high IQ or low IQ.
      (4) You write :”why they error on the side of caution”. This is not their usual error. They err by going on the side of corruption, of criminality, of dishonesty, of cheating, of serial lying. Caution is a totally irrelevant concept towards understanding the realities of Employment Tribunals.

  81. Martin Broomhead

    The name of the case is Employment Rights Advice v Thew & Reaseheath College. We are pursuing a formal judicial misconduct complaint against the two Employment Judges and considering referring the matter to the police to decide whether the criminal offence of misconduct in a public offence has been committed by either or both of them which is interesting as one of them used to a Crown Prosecutor.

  82. Martin Broomhead

    Sherrilyn Warren

    Sherrilyn Warren sat as a Fee-paid Employment Judge before becoming a Salaried Employment Judge. She was previously with the Crown Prosecution Service.

    Employment judges sit throughout England and Wales, and are assigned by the President to sit in a particular region. The Employment Tribunals determine disputes between employers and employees over employment rights.

    “I’ve wanted to be a judge since I was a child, but joining the Crown Prosecution Service meant that being a criminal judge was no longer an option – working as a solicitor for the CPS precluded it. I did some thinking in my thirties and realised that my position as a team leader dealing with management and HR issues may make me eligible to be an Employment Judge. I did that part-time for six years and then applied for and was appointed to the role I have now.

    “The guidance for the selection process was very clear on what to expect. I took time to prepare, and treated the test like an exam. I gave myself about six days to look at statutes and case law. I went back to basics and it was hard work.

    “My tip for getting through would be not to assume that just because you’re an experienced lawyer, you will be appointed. Show that you can think objectively, quickly and fairly and communicate in straightforward terms. Think outside of your current role – as an advocate you use your personality and as a judge you don’t – you need to be 100 per cent objective. Also, you’re dealing with people and their feelings, so compassion and a degree of empathy are essential.

    “Right now, I couldn’t be happier! I work in three different hearing centres as part of a team of 18 Employment Tribunal judges in Birmingham. The atmosphere is supportive and collegial and we get on well. It’s more than a job and everything I dreamed of. It’s intellectually challenging, not only from a legal perspective but from a human one. I’m where I want to be.”

    • Abdul

      In a post of mine of 6 February 2015 I touched upon the reasons why it is not very useful to ask barristers or solicitors whether there is corruption in Employment Tribunals. Similarly, I do not think that we need to pay much attention to statements by Employment Judges.

      For example, I do not expect any Employment Judge to say or write :”Yes, I admit it. We are corrupt. We conspire with Respondents to pervert the course of justice, we secretly meet with their solicitors before the Hearing to determine how to proceed so that judgment will go in favour of the Respondents, we ignore perjuries of the Respondents and basically we are ourselves machines of perjuries by being serial liars and by cheating on industrial scale, we have tens and tens of different techniques of cheating against Claimants who dare sue an Employer who belongs to the elite (=establishment), we impose massive costs on claimants in order to prevent them from being able to pursue an appeal, we secretly contact our friends in the EAT so as to take care of our interests when an appeal is made against our Judgment”.

      No, surely no Employment Judge would say this, orally or in writing. Let every person have his / her opinion about the Employment Judge whom he / she has encountered, without attaching any importance to sanctimonious words of typical British propaganda.

      What I mean by typical British propaganda is :”Our judges are the most honest in the world, our policemen are the bravest and most honest in the world ; our politicians are the most honest in the world ; our civil servants are the most honest in the world ; our soldiers are the ‘cleanest’ in the world ; our National Health Service is the best in the world and simply the envy of all other countries ; all our headteachers are just so honest”; etc.

  83. Edward Johansson

    I can confirm that the Employment Tribunal system in the UK is extremely unfair and does unfairly favour employers due to my own personal experience at the London Employment Tribunal and the EAT in 2014. After being singled out, brutally discriminated against and unfairly dismissed by a global, very high-profile employer after 12 years of loyal service, I was extremely shocked when after a fierce 5-day tribunal hearing and after having to wait for another 3 months for the Employment Tribunal judgement to arrive by post, the London Employment Tribunal overlooked all of the overwhelming evidence that I produced at my hearing in its judgement and acted on false, unfounded allegations in favour of my high-profile employer, who hired a barrister to represent them. (I represented myself).
    When I appealed to the EAT (Upper Tribunal) a few months later, I received exactly the same kind of treatment, whereby the judges blatantly overlooked several Errors of Law on the Employment Tribunal’s judgement, dismissed the case as having no prospects of success and refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
    I then Appealed to the Court of Appeal and received the same kind of treatment. The Court of Appeal judge blatantly ignored the serious Errors of Law by the Employment Tribunal and the EAT, refused to grant me the permission to appeal against the unfair Employment Tribunal judgement and refused to grant me the permission to go to the Supreme Court, despite the overwhelming evidence that I produced to prove that the London Employment Tribunal ignored considerable evidence in its judgement and the EAT got it wrong. (By doing that all of the appeal procedures have now been unfair blocked or exhausted, according to the Court of Appeal). So where is the justice in that?
    I was so astonished by the treatment I received from the British Judiciary system that I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary and requested an enquiry. But they refused to investigate, stressing the independence of the British judiciary and stating that they couldn’t intervene in judiciary judgements. Judges are free to make their own judgements or decisions that can’t be questioned by parliament. And that’s why there’s so many travesties of justice in the British Tribunal System. There are no checks and balances.
    This is a serious issue that needs to be redressed in due course by the present Government as the present Employment Tribunal System is seriously biased due to its independence from Government intervention and seems to be administering extreme travesties of justice in favour of high-profile employers. The way the Employment Tribunal and the EAT behaved was a disgrace to the British judiciary system. And if the Government refuses to intervene in this serious issue, the issue will deteriorate and many other innocent British employees will suffer at the hands of these unfair judges.
    If Employment Tribunals and EATs are ignoring evidence, basing their judgements on false allegations in favour of high-profile employers and assisting these employers to unfairly dismiss and discriminate against innocent employees, they are not serving their fundamental motive of protecting the employment rights of the oppressed British employees.
    In this day and age, in the UK, there should be a department that deals with Employment Tribunal and EAT travesties of justice.

  84. Abdul

    Sherrilyn Warren : I have never heard of her until reading the post of Martin Broomhead and I do not comment on her personally. I think that the quote from her raises a few general question, not connected to her personally.

    The appointment of judges is being done by some cabal, appointed by the Government. The general public do not know who is appointed to the committee which appoints judges. Judging by the overall quality of British judges as regarding honesty, the committee which appoints them is doing a lousy job. I believe that there is a high likelihood that had we checked individually this committee, we would have found that it is more representative of a certain political party than of the general public. I suggest public elections to this committee, or as a minimum a period of one month between appointment of a member to confirmation of appointment, a month in which the public can suggest objections which will be immune from the defamation / libel law. The objections of the public to be examined by a committee of Parliament, which will not have a majority of members from any one party. If too many proposed members of the committee are not appointed because of public allegations that they are crooks or whatever – so be it, let no new judges be appointed until we can find a proper committee to appoint judges. But I prefer elections to the job of a member of the committee which appoints judges.

    There is some suspicion that British Governments treat appointment of Employment Judges as a reward for services to the Government and its line in other jobs, and that totally unsuitable people are appointed to be Employment Judges (I do not talk here about the joke – or some may believe a highly corrupt practice – that is the appointment of lay members of tribunals, only about the professional judges). I believe that judges should be elected by the public to a fixed term. But if not, then again : there should be a month between their very public nomination and ttheir final confirmation for the job, so that the public can put in objections, alleging corruption and dishonesty etc. At the moment solicitors and barristers can engage in various dishonesties because they know that their appointment is being done secretly, well hidden from the public. The appointment of Employment Judges should not be seen by the Government and its supporters as kind of a bin of rewards for services to the line of the Government.

    “The atmosphere is supportive and collegial and we get on well”. Is this how biased is being entrenched in young judges by the older ones ? Just a question.

  85. Sandra Ruby

    I recently attended an Employment Tribunal to support a Claimant and was absolutely amazed by the Employment Judge. She all but curtsied to the Counsel for the Defendant She kept smiling at her and agreed every time Counsel interrupted the Solicitor for the Claimant. This EJ was so rude to the Solicitor and in summing up made defamatory remarks. Even though the Defendants admitted that the Claimant was an employee (who fitted the criteria and was an employee) the EJ decided she was not! A complaint has been but everything is being done to avoid dealing with it. Diabolical! Incidentally other observers were shocked at the EJ’s attitude.

  86. Squawkparrot

    I’m one of those people that have little credibility. I am a litigant in Person. When I challenge the submission of the lawyer, even if I submit a House of Lords (as it was then) authority, it is ignored; this was in the county court system.

    In another claim, this time in the employment tribunal, last year, the case had been rubbling on for four years. At a Case Management Hearing, we were to meet again, and when we did, if part of my claim was to be challenged then the respondent had to write to me 7 days before the hearing, setting out the facts and the law explaining their contention. They did not. Ten minutes before the hearing, I was handed an eight page submission why a part of my claim should be struck out. In the hearing, I submitted that the respondent’s counsel had not followed the rules, because I did not have sufficient time to put together a detailed and coherent argument about why Archibald v Fife Council was supportive of part of my claim. I even got the judge to get his “Rule Book”, and we looked at the relevant section which said I had to have something like a reasonable time to respond. He was not impressed. I gave him a brief outline of my argument. He looked across to the other party’s barrister and said – after just reading his account of why my case should be struck out – “that’s not what the case is about is it”. To which the opportunistic barrister said, quietly, “No”. That part of my claim was struck out. They then settled for £25,000.00.

    You feel that whatever the obvious barrister says, the judge takes it as being the truth, because don’t all barristers have a code of conduct, which means they cannot possibly pull a fast one or, tell a lie.

    This happens to me often. If you tell the judge that you too are a barrister, with a 1st class LLB, albeit a non-practicing one, that is worse, because s/he expects you to know everything as if you dealt with employment law on a daily basis, or, whatever law court you are in, every day, and can, roll off the tongue, everything you need at a moments notice. However, given the time, I can be pretty effective.

    I won the majority of my cases, the last one for £57,000.00, so sometimes they go to plan, but judges are sometimes slow in realising that the other party’s barrister has an agenda to win at any cost. Even when it is obvious, and you bring something to the judge’s attention that he has not played cricket, you get the brush off.

    In the same case, I obtained a third party debt order, for £50,000.00 of the debt, but, the council for the defendant tried to have the debt order struck out, by what clearly amounted to bad law. I got my money, only because I was able to convince the judge that the defendants were such bad people that they could not be said to have come to court with clean hands.

    Another case, in the court of first instance, I was told that I had set the police up, and therefore entrapped them into breaking the law. It is true that I had set-up the supermarket who arrested me (and got £2,500.00 from them), but that (for technical reasons) did not amount to entrapment. At appeal I was ready, I had the House of Lords case of Loosely (I think it was) with me. The judge ignored it. I had suffered, inter alia, unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, and when I was told I was innocent by the police, they still refused to let me go until I gave them my name and address for, “administrative purposes”. When I still refused to give it to them, pursuant Rice v Connolly, they said that they would arrest me for a public order office, even though seconds earlier they said I was innocent and could go, once I had given them my details. I had all this on tape, but the judge found for the police and awarded them £2,500.00 costs. My case reminds me of the Birmingham 6 case, at least in principle, wasn’t it Lord Denning who was supposed to have said that it is better that they had been hanged. If they were innocent that would mean that the police (and the judges) would have questions to answer, and that, essentially, would undermine the administration of justice. Better they hanged than expose such unlawful practices by the agents of the state and the justice system. Eventually they were released and the police were found to have acted, shall we be polite and understated, and say, unethically.

    Currently, one of my rods in the fire, is my complaint to the EU Commissioners office regarding an employment law case that the judges for the last 10 years have refused to acknowledge they have been wrong about. Most of the case has recently been swept away, but, in part it remains. The EU agreed with me that the UK is acting contrary to EU employment law, and I will say, the judges have shown themselves to be particularly pro-employer and anti-fairness these last ten years. If we don’t exit the EU next year, then soon afterwards the UK may be taken to the ECJ, because the government and the judges are refusing to act fairly and in accordance not only with EU law, but, contrary to UK law as well.

    Never mind, I’m in court again next month, let’s hope.

    PS, and I haven’t even mentioned the worse case yet… but that is for another day.

  87. Squawkparrot

    I’m posting this because Edward Johansson, above, said something about the independence of the judiciary.

    Our Constitution: Parliamentary oversight of the judiciary?

    This is a paper asking the question: who oversees the judiciary in a constitution that is meant to consist of checks and balances between the various branches that constitution?

    Eight hundred years ago, the King would send his judges into his realm to dispense justice on his behalf. However, by the late 1600’s it was recognised that the judges should be independent of the King’s influence, after all the people had recently cut off a King’s head, and another had fled the country, so they had little trust in their King, and that he would not meddle in the outcome of cases coming before the courts. Therefore, by the Act of Settlement 1701, the judges were protected from this influence; they became, independent of the influence of the Crown.

    And so, with the passing of the Act, they could not be undermined in the course of their duties as a judge. But, they had great power, able to lock anyone up for contempt should they try; and are able to deprive people of their liberty and property in the course of being judicial.

    MP Peter Hain’s experience is perhaps the most recent high profile case of this power, and its abuse, because he dared be a critical of a judge, thereby allegedly undermining the standing of the court. The possibility of his trial, made some 50 fellow MP’s sit up and take note of this judicial heavy hand, stepping in to sign a petition, which brought sufficient constitutional pressure to bear, bringing it to an end, and leading to the repeal of the law, Scandalising the Court.

    But, had that happened to a mere mortal, who could not rely on the support of 50 MP’s, this abuse of power would have almost certainly gone unnoticed, and hardly anyone would have cared. But, wasn’t Peter Hain’s experience the type of case in which Parliament should have taken a view and formed a Select Committee to monitor our judges’ use and possible misuse of their power? After all, if it could happen to an MP, who else was possibly being abused by the judges, and how often? Or, is it only when judges attack our MP’s does Parliament take note? Once the crisis had passed, should our MP’s have settled back, ‘believing’ that everything with the judiciary was, again, perfect?
    politics.co.uk states, “The doctrine of the “separation of powers” has traditionally proposed that the state is divided into the separate and distinct arms of Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, whereby each arm acts as a “check and balance” on the others.”

    It was recognised in 1701 that there had to be a “check and balance” on all the pillars of the constitution, each checking the other to ensure oversight on the power each branch wielded. Armed with the knowledge that power corrupts, Parliament in the days of the Act of Settlement did something more than just ensure that the judges were independent. It introduced a check on the power of the judges, because, it must have been recognised by Parliament that it was furnishing the judges with a power not dissimilar to the Kingly tyranny it was destroying.

    Parliament in the 1700’s required that a judge held his judicial office subject to, Quamdiu se bene gesserint, as long as he shall behave himself well, or, more often quoted today as, being of good conduct, and if he was not inclined to behave appropriately, he could be removed by a vote of both Houses. This was a deliberate insertion into the Act to stop the possibility of judicial tyranny or corruption by any means the judiciary might be incline to try.

    The people of the 17th and 18th centuries recognised that power corrupts. Our institutions over the centuries have become more democratic, with more checks and balances and less irreverence. Perhaps the best example is that the King has become less powerful, with the Crown’s powers transferred to the judges and to the Executive of the government, led by the Prime Minister.

    But, Prime Ministers cannot act in their office as they please. They can be removed by several methods, including, by the people in a general election; by a vote of no confidence in Parliament; by de-selection by their local constituency; or in the manner of Margaret Thatcher’s removal, because of a lost of confidence of her subordinates. And, the media, with relish, examines his or her every word and contradiction.
    And, Ministers of the Executive, and the PM, are all called to Parliament to explain why they have made the decisions they have. They are accountable to Parliament, and it is Parliament and the judges who ensure that the Executive are checked in what it does.

    Parliament, in the Act of Settlement, laid down a standard to which judges had to adhere. Parliamentarians should have, themselves, kept an eye on the judiciary to ensure their good conduct. But, that is not what has happened in the intervening 300 years since 1701. Parliament took their eye off the ball and sub-contracted judicial oversight to the judiciary. Is that really what is meant by a constitution based on checks and balances?

    Each judge is also to act independently of each other, to ensure, for example, that appeals are not judged on previous judges’ opinions of the case; but do they? How do we know? Because the judges tell us they do? They used to be influenced by the King, why do we believe that they are not influenced by each other, and look out for their collective interests, so that the administration of justice appears to all of us beyond reproach.

    Lord Denning said;

    “Hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn’t have all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they’d been hanged. They’d have been forgotten, and the whole of the community would have been satisfied… it’s better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned.”

    Is it because the word ‘independent’ has confused us, and we believe that we do not need to monitor their conduct? Or, do we all believe their own PR, that they are to be trusted absolutely? But, whatever the reasons, Parliament must ensure that the people it represents are safe from judicial capriciousness and prejudicial wrongs, even it is only a minority who secretly approve of Lord Denning’s perspective. But, because the judiciary are cloistered from proper scrutiny, we cannot know, for example, if a high court judge has behaved prejudicially in the way he has judged a case, because there is a chance that the appeal court may cover up those wrongs, so that the judge, cannot himself, be seen to have scandalised the court, thereby, the integrity of the judiciary remains sacrosanct.

    The judiciary should be accountable to Parliament for their continuing good conduct. There should be the actual, not the illusory administration of the rule of law in all cases. The judiciary should not be able to privately aspire to the principle, “that some innocent men remain in jail (or hanged) than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned.” If they are of that mindset, we the people, via our representatives, need to know.

    I somehow think that if the Prime Minister sanctioned MI5 to eradicate his or her opponents lives, liberty or possessions, just incase the integrity of his office might be impugned, we would, I should hope, be outraged. Indeed, if it ever came to that, we would be living in a tyranny. Yet, it seems that we are happy to live alongside that prospect, if it means keeping the up the appearance of judicial integrity and honour, for the sake of the standing of the administration of justice.

    After 1701 a number of judges were removed by impeachment, but, this device had not been used for such a long time that it is now probably obsolete. On 25th August 2004, Peter Hain MP – appearing for the second time in this paper – the then Leader of the House of Commons, told Adam Price MP, who was seeking the impeachment of Tony Blair PM, that impeachment had, “effectively died with the advent of full responsible Parliamentary government”.

    Perhaps impeachment is unavailable as regards politicians? But, should that device be declared deceased for the judiciary? An example of impeachment, and also an example of the judiciary being unable to police their own effectively, or in this case not at all, even in extreme cases, was the case of Thomas Parker, 1st Earl of Macclefield, Regent of Great Britain, Privy Councillor, Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Chancellor, amongst his titles. He was convicted of embezzling £11.000.000.00 in today’s money in 1725, which he must have done over a considerable period of time, and was only convicted and tried because of action taken by the House of Lords. This evidently demonstrates that the judiciary were not amenable to checking on the good conduct of one of their own, but were ‘happy’ to leave good conduct questions to the scrutiny of Parliament.

    The only senior judge to be removed from office by Parliamentary voting, as envisioned by the Act of Settlement, was almost 200 years ago in 1830, and this process is so underused it must be going the way of impeachment. His name was Jonah Barrington. What did he do to stray from the good conduct required by the Act of Settlement so that Parliament thought that they should be forced to act?

    Sir Jonah Barrington moved to France in 1815, to escape his creditors, who were seeking his bankruptcy. Whilst in France he still retained his judgeship and drew its salary, for 15 years. In 1830, a Parliamentary Commission recommended that he be removed from office, finally, because of misappropriation of court funds in 1805, 1806 and 1810. A question that this episode raises is why the judiciary did not step in to stop him drawing his salary soon after his escape? The judiciary perhaps did not think his behaviour so bad, and that it was better to look the other way so as to preserve the illusion of the standing of the judiciary and the administration of justice?

    Is that really how bad a judge has to be before Parliament can be bothered, and believe that a judge’s conduct is disgraceful enough to be removed from office? Indeed, it should not have to be really bad; the test should be conduct that is less than good, which is more aligned to the requirement in the Act of Settlement. It is clear that oversight of the judiciary was needed then, as it is needed, always. But of course, how would Parliament have known of his judicial malfeasance in public office and other criminality, if, they had to rely on the judiciary blowing the whistle on one of their own?

    That is why all types of conduct issues, including an oversight of the examination of how the judges are applying the law, shouldn’t be left to the judiciary, but to Parliament, so that Parliament can be sure that the judiciary are, in some shape at least, following the will of Parliament in their interpretation of its legislation, and are properly applying the rule of law consistently to all classes of litigant. Parliament have enough lawyers and cerebral members in its ranks to be able to effectively assess judicial competence, conduct in office and integrity. Why does it chose not to do so? Such a constitutional check and balance is fundamental.

    If Parliament were to oversee the judiciary then the administration of justice will improve and be more consistent. At the moment Parliament does not really know what the judges are doing, and if they are abiding by the good conduct rule, and do not have an effective mechanism or process to find out.

    The police, MP’s, doctors, lawyers, bankers, journalists, accountants and junior judges have all, very recently, abused their positions of power, and the judges have locked them up. But, Parliament does not know if our High Court judges have conducted themselves as we all have the right to expect when they are sitting in judgment on all of us. Whether it be in criminal cases, or in the civil branch of the justice system, where incidentally, Lord Denning was routinely encamped, and where miscarriages of justice are less likely to come to anyone’s attention.
    Today, there appears to be a belief by MP’s that the judges are untouchably independent. Therefore, they think, that Parliament has no business in assessing whether a judge’s conduct in what he does in his or her office is appropriate, or whether the judgments are consistent with the rule of law, or perhaps, consistent with the democratically elected lawmakers intentions. But, the whole point of our constitution is that nothing should be truly independent, all should operate under the watchful eye of the guardians in the other branches of our constitution. This is not about influencing the judiciary to depart from right and lawful decisions, but to ensure that they are acting lawfully.

    Parliament is in breach, may I suggest, of its obligations under the Act of Settlement, by handing its oversight responsibilities back to the very people it is meant to monitor. Clearly there is an imbalance in our Constitution today.

    MP’s and the Executive’s conduct can be scrutinised by the judges. As we know, MP’s can be sent to prison by the courts for what could ‘arguably’ be Parliamentary business, claiming more expenses than perhaps was allowed. Judges can tell Ministers that secondary legislation is illegal because the proposed changes to the law need to be enacted through primary legislation. Ministers can be told by judges that they have acted ultra vires, outside of their powers. Judges can interpret UK legislation in ways that Parliament did not intend at the time of its passing. They can give successive Home Secretaries grief in their interpretation of the Human Rights Act, for example, by refusing to extradite the unwanted. This is all very proper, it is what a proper system of checks and balances are supposed to achieve, the judiciary are meant to oversee the others branches of the constitution.
    But, what is clear is that the scrutiny is one way, it’s all in the judges’ favour. Where are the proper checks and balances on the judiciary envisaged by, and thought essential by, the Parliamentarians all those of years ago?

    The judges monitor their own behaviour by way of complaints to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) – notice the word “Conduct”, which is a allusion to the Act of Settlement. This mechanism for complaints against the judiciary was enshrined in law in 2013 and tweaked in Statutory Instrument 1919, The Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2014. But, the judiciary ensure that the complaints the JCIO can hear are limited in scope. For example, collective or institutional judicial prejudice cannot be brought to the attention of the JCIO, and neither can judgments no matter how perverse or contrary to the rule of law, or even when series of judges have clearly ignored the rule of law. And, if a judge was to be openly discriminatory in his judgment, and therefore, by any standard would be acting contrary to the will of Parliament, and the law, the JCIO will, in practice, refuse its admissibility. There is also evidence that the JCIO will, wherever possible, reject the complaint by declaring that they are not at liberty to investigate this or that, because of some limiting remit or other reason.

    But, if, a complaint improbably passes this first stage, it then goes before “a nominated judge”. If that judge deems it appropriate, onto an “investigating judge”. Judges investigating judges. Can that be right? Of course, the judges will say they are independent, but really, are they? We do not know.

    The next stage is before a four person disciplinary panel. This consists of two “office holders”, another name for judges, appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, the top judge. The other half of the panel consists of people who are neither, office holders, and therefore not judges, nor are lawyers, both of whom are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. But, here’s the catch, or should I say catches. Firstly; the non-lawyers have to be agreed my the Lord Chief Justice, i.e. the judges have to agree to have these non lawyers on the panel. Secondly; the most senior judge, who is nominated by the Lord Chief Justice, must be the chair of the panel. Finally; the most senior judge, the chair, has the casting vote; so effectively, the judges have three votes and the judge approved non-judges/lawyers only two. I believe it is a classic example of packing the jury with your own people, to achieve the desired result.

    Appeals are only available if the JCIO have handled the complaint incorrectly, not that the judge’s own complaint’s office has come to the wrong decision. In other words, there does not appear the possibility of appeal if the complaint is held to be inadmissible or, obviously wrong and against the evidence.

    The separation of powers is between the Executive, the Legislative and the judges. The Lord Chancellor is part of the Executive, he is not part of the Legislative, it was never really his responsibility to monitor the judges. It was the Legislative, Parliamentarians, who were tasked to oversee the judges in the Act of Settlement.

    Parliament, and the Executive, by effectively, and in practice, giving total independence to the judges, and by allowing them to investigate themselves, have allowed them to act contrary to Article 6 for such complaints, as the Office cannot be said to be remotely impartial and independent. And, it must be known by our judges that the process they are participating in is contrary to Article 6, unless we believe them when they tell us that they are totally independent of other judges. Perhaps they are? But, if we turn a blind eye, we will never know. Where is the oversight? And that is the point, we should not live in the hope that they are able to police themselves, there should be an external body that monitors our judges.

    Parliament does not know if the JCIO resides over a complaints mechanism that only gives the appearance of such, but which could exist, not to uncover and correct judicial wrongs, but to cover them up, whenever it possible can, so as to ensure the illusion of the integrity of the administration of justice is maintained. There is no real oversight; the judiciary are, quite literally, a law unto themselves.

    And, the judiciary have set up their branch of the constitution in a way in which prohibits allegations of judicial impropriety. For example, it might be expected that the ‘independent bar’ could be a source of judicial monitoring. The barrister’s code of conduct appears to invite such criticism, because, acting with “integrity and honesty” and a duty to, “maintain your independence”, is part of what a barrister does. But, it is trumped by, “your duty to the administration of justice”, meaning, it is a barrister’s duty not to, “diminish the public’s confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise to bring the legal profession into disrepute” [Code of Conduct: 8th Edition: 301(a)(iii)]; to that can be added, so that it is continued to be held in high esteem, regardless of whether it actually should. Is this the judicial version of the Emperor’s new clothes?

    Are we all being conned, and no one dare say so? The incestuous relationship of the bar to the judiciary, and the prospective ambition of barristers to rise to judicial office, could also be an obstruction to such policing. This has a parallel in the NHS, where it is recognised that there is a need to change the bullying culture applied to whistle-blowers, because it’s culture is seen as a damper on improving health care. The judiciary and bar, within their code of conduct, culture and procedures, make any criticism of our judges in their office, very highly unlikely, because, whistle-blowing is simply not done, and will have consequences.

    I recently asked a practicing barrister if an High Court judge was, essentially dishonest, because a very well known rule of law had, on the face of it, been obviously and knowingly misapplied. He said that it was impossible for a High Court judge to be dishonest because they had taken an oath, and after years on the bench would have been found out. I told him that Dr. Harold Shipman had taken an equally important oath, the Hippocratic oath but, that did not stop him killing up to 250 of his patients over many years. Still, he would not speak of the possibility of judicial dishonesty, and in any case, more to the point, his code of conduct, and his ambition, did not allow him to express that possibility.
    I’m reluctant to say this, because it will be taken in the wrong way, and it might be seen as extreme by some people, but, I’ll say it anyway as it may provoke debate. A reason that Mr Putin has such high popularity within Russia is because he controls the media and stops any criticism. Why is what Mr Putin does so dissimilar to the control the judiciary exercise in this jurisdiction? I’m not saying that our judiciary are like Mr Putin at all, perhaps they are all saintly, but, the fact is we do not know that they do in dispensing justice. And, it begs the question, if they are all so saintly why is there the need for such a level of control over their PR and why are their rules and procedures designed to protect the administration of justice from criticism? Democracy demands openness, we do not have that with the judiciary.

    Our judges, perhaps the most powerful and entrenched branch of the constitution, have no real or meaningful oversight brought to bear on them.

    I respectfully suggest that there is a need for Parliament to oversee the administration of justice in a democratic modern society, and not just accept the appearance of justice as it currently exists, because, it could well be a sham? Parliament cannot know. Matters of such constitutional importance should not be left to chance; nor should the apparent integrity of individual judges, nor the self-serving collectivism of our judges, as implied by Lord Denning.

    The judiciary, currently, are able to police themselves, in many ways similar to the police, only more so, and our MP’s should know how unsatisfactory that can be; Plebgate being a recent high profile example. And, as BBC news reporter said, ‘if they can do that to a Minister of government, what type of justice is being served up in our deprived estates up and down the country?’

    In the past there have been cases of really shocking judges, for example, Justice Luke Fox (1805), Judge Robert Johnson (1805), and Sir Justice Grantham (1906 & 1911), and Cecil Harvey QC in 1958 said that during his time at the bar, “there had been some dreadfully bad judges. None worse than Lord Hewart, Lord Chief Justice”; and he called Mr Justice Darling “a real shocker”. But, all have escaped Parliamentary censure or removal, excepting Sir Jonah Barrington. Today, one would hope that our standards are very much higher, and as a people we should demand the highest standards from our judges in the way in which they conduct themselves in office deciding on our liberty, our right to our property, or our reputation. But, it is implied, in an article taken from, “The Short Book of Bad Judges” in the Inner Temple Year Book 2014-2015, by Master Graeme Williams, that the problem of bad judges is still with us.

    Our MP’s understand the need for a free press; that Ministers should be required to account for their actions in Parliament; and the PM answers to all MP’s and the watching country at PMQ’s, but our judges need not answer to anyone except themselves in the way they conduct themselves in their profession.

    Yet, during the enquiry into the press, on 28th May 2012, Lord Justice Leverson’s closing remark to Tony Blair was,
    “I’m not in any sense suggesting that they [the press] shouldn’t continue to hold politicians and judges to account for everything that they do.”

    Did his Lordship really believe that judges come under the same scrutiny as politicians and that they should be held to account for everything they do? Surely not. And, at the same time he said this, he would have been aware that Peter Hain MP was facing trial for trying to hold a judge to account by criticising him in his memoirs. Was this a case of doublethink, holding two contradictory accounts in his mind at the same time, believing both to be true?

    It would appear that the judiciary in this instant was mounting a preemptive PR campaign, which clearly is contrary to the de facto reality. But, if they, the judges, really think they should come under the same scrutiny as the politicians, and he was not just setting up a smoke screen to hide the reality of the situation, then it would appear the the judiciary believe, or at least can have no objection that they too should be subject to very close scrutiny by an external body. However, the press, as the situation currently stands, might be a little wary of providing any real judicial scrutiny without some further encouragement, especially as they might find themselves in court to face the very people they might be critical of. No, it might be better, certainly initially at least, that the press should report on questions directed at the judiciary by a body within Parliament tasked specifically to oversee this arm of the constitution.

    There is a need to address this important constitutional imbalance, were we have allowed the judiciary to become untouchable and unaccountable, to all except themselves. There is a need to revert to the implied provisions and safeguards in the Act of Settlement. This is especially apposite if we are to be ‘rid’ of, if that is possible, or a worthwhile an ambition, as some may wish, the Human Rights Act, the European Court of Human Rights, or the Convention on which it is founded. But, in any respect, there is a need to ensure that our MP’s take responsibility for the fundamental rights and freedoms that they have fought so hard to ensure over the centuries and not hope that such an external body can do their job for them.

    Is it time to set up a Select Committee to create an oversight mechanism, which ensures a dialogue between these two branches of our Constitution, to ensure our judges conduct themselves, independently, but appropriately, in all aspects of their office? We are perhaps 300 years late, but not too late. Or, perhaps is it time for the JCIO to change and to come under the guardianship of such a Committee?

    Should judges be asked to appear to explain their more incomprehensible and perverse rulings and actions, just like all other parts of our society are called to do from time to time in front of a Select Committee? High Court judges are extremely bright and well versed in the law, and their judgments are considered and thought out, unlike politicians who the press are always attempting to catch out, by off the cuff answers to tricky questions. They could be respectfully asked, and should easily be able to explain themselves, why evidence was weak or strong, and why they rejected or accepted this or that legal principle or rule.

    It probably need not be the high profile cases that are a target of the Committee, because the judges are more likely to properly apply the rule of law when they think the press might be taking an interest, but the quieter, less high profile cases, were justice is not being seen to be done, and so may not be.

    This proposed oversight can only bring a better application of the rule of law to all our people if judges from time to time are asked to explain why they have ruled or behaved as they have. It will enhance the Legislative’s understanding of the way judges think, and therefore should, in turn, lead to a better legislative process and less judicial activism. And, a desirable consequence could be, better democratic accountability. After all, we do, don’t we, live in a democracy? And, this should in turn, lead to a better judiciary?

    Your comments on the above would be greatly appreciated.

  88. Douglas

    After corresponding with my MP, Lord Freud, Lord MacNally, Sir John Brigstocke, Honorable justice Langstaff (President of the EAT), Judge Doyle (President of the ET England and Wales), REJ Parkin (South West) and many “others”.

    I never thought I would say this, however in answer to the original question “Is the tribunal system corrupt”.

    Yes it is, horribly. The whole legal system is.

  89. Abdul

    I read this morning on the site of BBC News an article by Clive Coleman, “Why are 200 judges suing the UK government?”. People may or may not find the story hilarious, but there is a point from it which substantiates what I have been describing in various posts as British official propaganda serving the interests of the Establishment : that our judges are the most honest in the world, our policemen are the most honest in the world, our journalists are the most honest and most brave in the world, etc etc.

    Coleman writes : “…the fact that judges have always been financially well looked after and treated equally has contributed to a critical part of our constitutional strength. When was the last time there was a story about a corrupt judge taking a bribe?
    It happens in many countries around the world, but it just does not happen here. Many believe that we have a “straight” judiciary in part because they are given sufficient rewards to place them above temptation. Changes to the pension will not alter that, but there is a school of thought that says, some things, including generous judicial pensions, are worth paying for.”
    No judge in Britain, according to figures quoted by Coleman in the article, is being paid less than a 6-figure salary per annum. Yet we are pontificated to that we need to pay judges even more generous pensions in order to guarantee their ‘legendary honesty’. We pay them very high salaries, says Coleman, and thanks to that they are never corrupt.

    Ha ha ha, good joke, Mr Coleman. I can imagine you receiving an invitation to some lunch with the chief judicial persons in the country, in which I, of course, will not be present. But anyone who reads the many posts on the site here will know that widespread judicial corruption is the norm in Britain. Not only in Employment Tribunals, but certainly the Employment Tribunals in Britain are at the very front, at the cutting edge, of the never-ending battle of the British judiciary to ensure that corruption always prevails over justice (when it is in the interests of our Establishment).

    Coleman says that British judges do not take bribes. The answer to this is : (1) No one investigates this. When I came with certain specific suspicions and complained to the Serious Fraud Office, they simply refused to correspond or talk to me, no doubt being advised to do so by the Ministry of Justice. There are simply no investigations to establish whether bribes have or have not been paid over so many cases of ‘unjust judgments’ in Employment Tribunals. (2) Corruption does not need to involve pecuniary rewards in the form of financial bribes. Bribes can be through advance in career. For example, if you do what is in the interests of the Government, you ‘know’ that you will later be appointed as an Employment Judge or that you will be advanced, you will be going places.

    Incidentally, another matter of irony. Coleman writes that it will be difficult to find an unbiased Employment Judge to adjudicate the claim of the 200 or so judges against the Ministry of Justice. So suddenly it is a problem ? What about all those cases in Employment Tribunals faced by the Claimant, a Mr Simple Citizen or Ms Honest Citizen, in which Regional Employment Judges go to an amazing length in their efforts to guarantee that not only the Employment Judge, but also at least one of the two lay members of the Employment Tribunal, will be members or supporters of the Respondent organization ?

    We need to be very thankful to Naomi and Michael for opening this particular blog. Even if some posts have been censored, we can still write some words of truth about Employment Tribunals. While it cannot compete with journalists in national newspapers who prefer to continue spreading the official myths about the honesty of British judges, it is still a rare opportunity to counteract with the truth.

  90. Abdul

    And I forgot to say, in my previous post, that most cases of corruption by Employment Judges in Employment Tribunal may be done not for any reward, monetary or future advancement, but just as a favour : friends to friends.

    However, the fact is that the trade union representatives in ETs are almost invariably, in cases which can be considered to show judicial corruption, on the side of corrupt judges and against honest employees. I believe that their motivation is the money which they get from being appointed as lay members, and if they support the judge they will get more days in court, for which they are handsomely remunerated. And they get also honour and respect from the Establishment.

    Corruption in different people may have different motivations.

  91. Peter Taylor

    I am being persecuted in court and if Naomi or Michael would like to see how these Judges act then I have a tribunal hearing on the 4th August in the Birmingham tribunal courts:- P Taylor v Ladbrokes racing LTD if they would like to attend. If any one else would like to be there to give me some moral support I would appreciate it.

    I had a disability hearing in February where I informed the Judge presiding of the incorrect manner in which the respondents solicitors had acted.

    These included withholding evidence and producing evidence just 6 days before the hearing.

    Medical expert reports that were supposed to be joint instructions but I have never received a report from either of the two medical experts. The judge commenting that he could see no way in which I could have been compromised by the way the reports were sent to me by the respondent.

    Giving me their witness statements just 2 days before the hearing.

    After telling the judge that the statements contained lies he said he wasn’t going to read them anyway.

    The joint evidence bundle was sent to me 6 days before the hearing without no input from myself.

    I mentioned this all to the Judge but he didn’t want to know.

    I informed the Judge that at my appeal meeting with the company’s representative he agreed to my medical condition of having a disability. The Judges response was that it was not up to the respondent to say whether I had a disability it was for the courts. Then in his letter from the hearing he asks the respondent if they concede disability. That is contradictory to his comment in court.

    All the parties present agreed that my diabetes was progressive under section 8 of the Equality act so I had thought I had won. But no I had to attend another medical with one of the medical experts to decide what effect stopping my medication would have.

    In the court letter the judge failed to mention section 8. I had to ask twice for this information which was sent in a letter.

    The second medical report contained a clear lie. In the first statement the medical expert said due to the fact that I have retinopathy then I would have had to have had diabetes for at least 10 years. In his second letter he states that I have had diabetes for 5 years or less. This being the case then I would have little adverse effects.

    The Judge in the second hearing again refused to read any witness statement asking if I could prove I was suffering adverse effects which was in my witness statement backed by my own doctor.

    I produced the letter saying everyone agreed to section 8 but when I mentioned it the Judge said there had been a clerical error and meant section 6. No mention of progressiveness in this section!

    The judgement went against me.

    I asked for a reconsideration in April. I also asked for the reasons for judgement. I researched my conditions online and found that both medical experts had lied in their reports. I included this information and the fact of the clear lie by the one medical expert.

    Two weeks before the tribunal hearing I received the outcome and reasons for judgement. No change in the judgement even though the reasons contained the evidence which was a clear lie.

    The respondents asked for a postponement of the exchange of witness statements due to the fact that they wanted to wait for the outcome of the disability reconsideration. Stating that they couldn’t do the statements until the outcome was known.

    This was granted as the judge said it was in the interest of justice.

    I asked for the hearing to be postponed if the statements were to be exchanged one week before the hearing. No mention of this from the judge.

    I am going to appeal but the courts say I must carry on with the hearing. I have not had enough time to prepare anything not even my witness statement.

    The respondents are still withholding evidence and refusing to add documents to the evidence bundle that would help my case.

    The courts have insisted that the tribunal goes ahead even with all that is not resolved.

    I will attend the tribunal without a witness statement and try to convince the judge that it is not within the interest of justice to commence.

    Peter Taylor

  92. Ben Adam

    Thank you all for your comments on many important points.

    My experience in ET and ETJ, was when I went through 3 days of hearing in Liverpool ET.
    During the hearing I felt I was going through a battle and struggled to get my points through, mainly during my evidence as a claimant/complainant.

    The respondent Counsel was dictating to the Judge what to accept and not to accept from my evidence. My counsel was more junior than the respondent’s counsel. Obviously LCC has the authority and pay high law firms to represent their managers.

    Regardless of all the heavy weight of the respondent, there was more evidence to prove that flagrantly discriminated and victimised as a disabled employee and my counsel did his best to prove that my manager have discriminated against me. However, after 3 days of hearing, judgement was not given straightaway, but it was after Christmas 2014 when I received the judgement decision that my case was dismissed.

    I am aware that freemasons’ influence took place because I know of the 2 male senior managers (respondents) were members of freemasons. If the true British justice really took place, I will have certainly won my case.

    I also appealed (unrepresented) but lost my case.

    I just cannot believe that the British just can go that low and allow its legal system polluted by the freemasons.

    • Abdul

      However, this is a red herring. It hardly ever happens that Claimants are being subsidized, but it happens a lot – of course – for Respondents (for example : local councils, police authorities, etc.).

      What this example shows is the ridiculously high “legal costs” : solicitors have the right to print money through their ‘hourly rate’. You are right that most other Claimants have to worry about the corruption and dishonesty of Employment Judges, especially now that these Employment Judges are using more and more as a strategic weapon their ability not only to cheat in the Judgment but also to lambaste honest Claimants with punitive costs. Gone are the days when any Employment Judge paid attention to the rule of the EAT that hitting with costs ‘should be restorative but not punitive’ : it is done now regularly by Employment Tribunals as a political weapon to help the Establishment. Regrettably, many many trade union representatives are part of this corruption.

    • Abdul

      So a Liberal-Democrat Councillor complains about corruption in a council regarding Employment Tribunal ? I wonder if he will complain about the following :

      An elected Liberal-Democrat active local politician sitting as a lay trade-union representative on an Employment Tribunal in a claim against his own Council, a Council of which he is also (separately from being politically a member) is an employee, and where he is also the trade union representative of his union in all negotiations with this particular Council and its HR Dept (decisions about the members of this union are being made on a local basis, not on a national basis). And there is more to say about him.

  93. Abdul

    There was a case of a lay member of Employment Tribunals who has dared to demand conditions / benefits similar to those of professional Employment Judges. He was contemptuously dismissed when his case came to an ET, the Employment Judge saying that in ETs, the contribution by lay members is very limited and that most of the arguments and explanations come from the professional judge. The Claimant suggested that lay members offer a contribution on a par with the professional judge (and that therefore they deserve similar conditions), but this was easily dismissed by the professional judge.

    I do not want to get here into the thorny topic of the level of IQ of lay members in Employment Tribunals (especially, I assume, outside London), and why would a Regional Employment Judge appoint such people, possibly(?) inadequate, to be lay members of ETs.

    I assume that the judge knows what he says, that in England cases are in reality being conducted by the professional judge, with the lay members being just “yes men”. This means, I believe, that the line of corruption always go through the professional judges, as one can gather from careful reading of experiences divulged by comments on this blog. And of course they are the ones who serve best, through all this corruption, the interests of the Government and the judiciary. Professional judges in Employment Tribunals are not only Fat Cats : they are Well-Protected Fat Cats.

    • Abdul

      I wonder how this ex-lay member of Employment Tribunals would have felt, or acted, had he known that the professional judge appointed to sit in his claim was one with a formal ‘conviction’ by the EAT as a biased judge (in favour of a public organization, of course). I bet he has not known it at the time and that he would have acted totally differently had he known that. Not knowing that, he stood no chance, in my opinion.

      But how would he have acted if such an issue would have been raised while he had still been a lay member of ETs ? Would he then, in real hearing, give his support to the professional judge if a Claimant made a request for him to recuse himself due to his apparent bias ?

  94. Alan M Dransfield

    Justice Langstaff the EAT Preident has just responded to my allegation of corrupt practices by Exeter ET ref my unfair dismissal by the the Balfour Beatty Group.

    I have now presented demonstrable NEW evidence to the Exeter ET Service that my Qualified Disclosures were indeed well founded .
    I say NEW evidence because it is new evidence to me but was available to the ET and EAT five years ago but hey chose not to look at it.
    The EAT upheld an ET decision that the Balfour Beatty Group had lawfully terminated my employment under REDUNDANCY LAWS .

    The New Evidence clearly support my Qualified Disclosure were well founded and made in good faith.
    I have now written to the original ET asking for an inquiry

  95. Abdul

    I have searched entries about “Employment Tribunal” in The Telegraph. The entries in this paper show the blatant, massive bias of this paper, just like most others, in support of employers.
    I found there a Letter to the Editor, or a comment, I believe dated 12 October 2015, from a Mr Robert F. Ashton, a retired Employment Judge, under the title “Scars of Abuse Claim”. Mr Ashton complains about the disastrous results for people who are accused of sexual harassment or other sex crimes, in those cases in which the police have not found enough evidence to take the case any further beyond the investigation stage. He says that the fact that a complaint has been submitted is registered against a person’s name, and that in many cases this is enough for the police and social services to treat this person as guilty or next to guilty, despite the decision not to prosecute for lack of any evidence. This, according to Mr Ashton, can ruin this person’s career : for example, he says, a person like that is likely to lose his/her employment “such as helping in your local school or being a Scout leader”.
    Well, a person like that may take his/her dismissal to an Employment Tribunal. Here is what Mr Ashton says about this possibility :” To their shame, and I write as a retired employment judge, employment tribunals are then likely to find their dismissal as “fair”. “
    Mr Ashton was trying to promote a cherished right-wing point, that allegations of sex abuse have gone too far and are unfair to the accused. He talks about small school assistants, but one may feel that the real people about whom he may be grieving are much higher up on the establishment ladder. One can always be sure that Employment Judges never cry about lost justice, or about the ‘great unwashed’, but only about the fate of the ‘long-suffering and much-discriminated-against upper class’.
    But what comes out as to the question about how corrupt are our Employment Judges is, that Mr Ashton, a retired Employment Judge, unwittingly justifies all the complaints in this blog about corrupt Employment Tribunals : they side with the Employers (=Respondents) against the truth. We heard it in this letter from an Employment Judge.
    I wonder what Mr Ashton would have thought about the following case, in which no one complained against a dedicated teacher yet an allegedly-corrupt local council uses this same allegedly dirty trick, of its own accord, to take revenge on an honest teacher.
    A teacher has submitted a Constructive Dismissal claim against a school and a Conservative-led local authority. Allegedly the school and/or the local council have nobbled the Employment Tribunal to fraudulently decide in their favour, the Tribunal using in the process tens and tens of different cheating techniques. (This is the basis for a complaint of some 50 separate corruption allegations against 14 different persons, including 7 judges, a complaint that the SFO refuses to even acknowledge, no doubt due to Government specific instructions).
    Now, the teacher who has lost her job still needs to bring a reference from the last school : as she is no longer in her job, it goes to the allegedly-corrupt HR of the allegedly-corrupt Local Council. The teacher tries to outwit the hostile Conservative Council and submits an application for a job without the reference, saying on the application that she had an ET Claim against her last school and against the Council. The Head Teacher shortlists her, saying that if the teacher is accepted, the Headteacher herself will ask the previous school for a formal reference as a formality.
    The Headteacher informs the teacher at the end of the day that she gets the job because she has been just so amazing in the lesson given by her (the HT watched the lessons given by all candidates) and in the interview. She says that she treats the reference as mere formality. Now the HR of the Local Council want, for purposes of revenge, to prevent this teacher from finding a job in teaching, and they have heard from the Headteacher that she has accepted the teacher. So they go for the ultimate dirty trick : they leave blank the one box or two boxes relating to reliability of the teacher being with children. There has never been any complaint whatsoever against this exemplary teacher regarding her treatment of children (neither school children nor her own children). She had always glowing references from all her schools, about all and any aspects of her work. Her last school itself submitted past references for job applications by her with these child-protection boxes positively ticked for her. It was simply that the Council wanted to ruin for her the chance of getting the job. The Headteacher who has offered the job (being in another local authority) felt obliged to consult the HR of her own Local Authority. These HR people came back to the Headteacher saying that they have talked to the HR people of her previous Local Authority and that she is requested not to employ this particular teacher. The Headteacher felt that she has no choice but to oblige.
    The teacher felt that the HR of her original school had the courage to cheat like that on her reference sheet (they are under obligation not to leave blank boxes) because they felt that they would always have the backing of the corrupt local Employment Tribunal. She felt that as this local ET has previously behaved, in her opinion and belief, like a mafia family, there was no point bringing a new claim to the ET. My question is : Why should we feel pity for Conservative top-establishment people about career-destroying false allegations, when Conservative-led local councils use fairly similar dirty tricks just to prevent poor, honest, good teachers from finding work only because they had the courage to Claim against them in an Employment Tribunal ?

    • Douglas

      It is a broken (aka corrupt) system, breaking and finally broken by the introduction of FEES? Which by their introduction have done another favour to the employer and caused much concern at the tribunal user groups (I have their minutes), a drop of 70% in claims.
      So when do we see wholesale redundancies amongst the tribunal judges?
      A 70% redundancy of Judges let alone their support workers, would save the Government in the region of £23,000,000pa which is about 25% of the turnover of Peninsula Business Services, is this a fair swap?
      NO no….

  96. Not a happy bunny.

    Well my experience having recently won one case and helped a friend with another as best I can is that the Tribunal system is inept and in too many instances totally corrupt.

    That goes for the back office staff too, not just the inept judges. Even where an unrepresented applicant gets the respondent bang to rights- failing by to comply with the Tribunal’s own unless orders – the chicanery in the system kicks in, the Tribunal and its staff look the other way and the malefactors get off. The whole thing has become lawyers racket. Might as well bring back trial by ordeal. There’s little difference in the rigour of it.

  97. Douglas

    The dream job? Salary £100,000pa

    With receipts down by 70%, have the Employment tribunal Judges taken early retirement or part time work on a full salary with private offices supplied by HMCTS? Oh let us not forget the pension.

    No sign of a zero hours contract on the minimum wage here?

    Corruption? I think so….

    • Abdul

      Douglas, These are excellent comments.

      Employment Judges “never die” : they give, through their corruption, such a fabulous service to all our corrupt governments, and to powerful corrupt employers, that their services are considered to be above party politics and above economic-situation considerations. They are economically secure to the end of days – as long as they produce the required goods, which they always do. Even Jeremy Corbyn keeps away from attacking the corrupt Tribunal System, presumably he also believes that his government will need the services of our corrupt Employment Judges if he gets to power.

    • Abdul

      Douglas, These are excellent comments.

      Employment Judges “never die” : they give, through their corruption, such a fabulous service to all our corrupt governments, and to powerful corrupt employers, that their services are considered to be above party politics and above economic-situation considerations. They are economically secure to the end of days – as long as they produce the required goods, which they always do. Even Jeremy Corbyn keeps away from attacking the corrupt Tribunal System, presumably he also believes that his government will need the services of our corrupt Employment Judges if he gets to power.

  98. Abdul

    Douglas, These are excellent comments.

    Employment Judges “never die” : they give, through their corruption, such a fabulous service to all our corrupt governments, and to powerful corrupt employers, that their services are considered to be above party politics and above economic-situation considerations. They are economically secure to the end of days – as long as they produce the required goods, which they always do. Even Jeremy Corbyn keeps away from attacking the corrupt Tribunal System, presumably he also believes that his government will need the services of our corrupt Employment Judges if he gets to power.

  99. Richard G. Stevens

    I do hope I shall not be writing similarly to other correspondents after I take a discrimination case to a tribunal. Sadly once we are wrongly emasculated, we inevitably become bitter. I would like to speak further with Douglas about his experiences…perhaps he will find me, as an author, interesting to talk with.

    • Abdul

      Richard G. Stevens, you write “we are wrongly emasculated” : this is too weak to describe the level of criminality and corruption which is being put into some cases by the Tribunal. They organize their corruption to work like a smooth military machine. If they (the employment judges) are caught, they still win against the small honest employee because there is no independent mechanism to investigate their crimes. The Government takes great care that complaints will not be investigated : cover-up and whitewash rule supreme.

      Anyhow, I wish you success in your case.

  100. Abdul

    Anyone who has watched the recent programme on television about police corruption, could have heard a senior ex-policeman saying that organized crime has massive control or power not only within the police and public prosecution, but also within the legal profession, which includes judges. In my complaint to the Serious Fraud Office against certain Employment Judges, in which I have asked this allegedly anti-corruption organization to investigate my suspicion that a certain Employment Tribunal operates as an organized crime unit, I have suggested that while people tend to attribute the high level of corruption of Employment Judges to protecting the Establishment and their friends, it is not that we can a priori exclude the possibility of bribery, by money or other benefits. In Israel, for example, judges have been arrested and imprisoned for taking bribes and for other corruption offences. Except for our official British propaganda, there is no reason to think that our judges are different. But here in Britain the Government frustrates calls for investigation : all British Governments have always been very comfortable with corruption in favour of the Establishment.

    The difficulty of investigating this line of behaviour in judges, and the lack of willingness to investigate corruption in Employment Tribunals, is one of the reasons for my call to establish an Independent, Unified, National, Specialized Police Unit to investigate criminality, corruption and dishonesty of British judges.

  101. Anon

    ET’s ARE CORRUPT and as bent as a £9 note!!!

    I was severely failed by no less than 2 miscarriages of justice, in that I was up against 6, yes 6 managers, ALL of whom were allowed, despite my barristers objection, to be sat in the room whilst the first gave their evidence.

    Hence, allowing the others in turn to hear what had been said prior to them giving their evidence.

    The second miscarriage of justice was that the judge, AGAIN, despite my barristers objection, allowed the witnesses to change their stories on the fly, despite having made sworn statements and allowing them to change what they had meant in their statements.

    Especially my bully! Hence, resulting in me having lost my case, but despite that the defence barrister later admitted to my barrister in the normal post hearing autopsy that happens that he eventually left with a bad taste in his mouth as he genuinely believed that I was bullied out of my job.

    6 years later I an still out of work!

    Incidentally, the defence solicitor and barrister were regulars on the circuit at Central London Employment Tribunal and known to the judge. Whereas, my barrister and I were only a one off.

    Hence, the party generating regular income, ultimately for the Judge. Therefore call it revenue protection of the real term CORRUPTION!!!

    We just live in a world of us and them; and every other day we hear about corruption, injustices, miscarriages and it takes decades if not a lifetime before they are admitted.

  102. Anon

    ET’s ARE CORRUPT and as bent as a £9 note!!!

    I was severely failed by no less than 2 miscarriages of justice, in that I was up against 6, yes 6 managers, ALL of whom were allowed, despite my barristers objection, to be sat in the room whilst the first gave their evidence.

    Hence, allowing the others in turn to hear what had been said prior to them giving their evidence.

    The second miscarriage of justice was that the judge, AGAIN, despite my barristers objection, allowed the witnesses to change their stories on the fly, despite having made sworn statements and allowing them to change what they had meant in their statements.

    Especially my bully! Hence, resulting in me having lost my case, but despite that the defence barrister later admitted to my barrister in the normal post hearing autopsy that happens that he eventually left with a bad taste in his mouth as he genuinely believed that I was bullied out of my job.

    6 years later I an still out of work!

    Incidentally, the defence solicitor and barrister were regulars on the circuit at Central London Employment Tribunal and known to the judge. Whereas, my barrister and I were only a one off.

    Hence, the party generating regular income, ultimately for the Judge. Therefore call it revenue protection of the real term CORRUPTION!!!

    I did have the option of taking things further for Judicial Review, but the uncertainty of the initial judge being known to the senior judge, the uncertainty of how long and how much etc just meant that I had to cut my fight for fair justice short and call it a day.

    We just live in a world of us and them; and every other day we hear about corruption, injustices, miscarriages and it takes decades if not a lifetime before they are admitted.

    No good to the bright futures and lives cut short by such corrupt activities. It’s all well and good pointing the finger at corruption in the developing world but the supposed developed democratic world 10 times is worse as it’s blatant hypocrisy!!!

  103. Neil

    I would just like to thank the very fair Judge that found in my case against the mighty [name of employer] plc and their legal team. On 27th June 2013 at Watford tribunal court the judge threw out their case for sacking me and found in my favour that I was wrongfully dismissed and it cost them 10 grand. The middle Managers that bought the case initially were slated by the judge and were so sick it made me laugh and Im glad of being able to print this here. I retired and lft this awful company .

    • Naomi

      Apologies for editing your post: we have a policy against naming the ‘bad guys’ on this blog, because we don’t have time to think in each case about whether the post may be defamatory.

  104. Jenni Watson

    I have represented teachers in Employment Tribunals for 18 years and know the system well. I have never represented a Respondent to a claim and I never take on a case I do not believe in so my ‘claimant’ credentials are solid. My success rate is over 80% and I put it down to hard work and understanding how things work. While some lost cases continue to bug me in sleepless nights because I believe the judge ‘got it wrong’ I simply cannot see any evidence of corruption. Some judges are stroppy and some are pleasant – just like the rest of us.

  105. Sellie

    Hi Naomi,

    To be fair, if we as an employee only got 20% of our work right, are we fit to do the job? One employs someone to be an expert in their field and the higher one goes the more of an expert one needs to be.

    In my case the Judges ignored clear evidence that the other party was attempting to mislead them and did not enquire much. They ignored my doctors notes stating I was not well and needed a postponement when I had less than a week to prepare representing myself, something someone with a mental condition would find difficult. Even when I sent in a Request for Reconsideration clearly showing they had erred and made errors and that I had further medical evidence from further professionals to justify my mental health matter, they claimed it was too late to enter further evidence and ignore reading my new evidence in conjunction with my doctors previous note, etc.

    This is not the signs of Judges making errors. If one comes forward and clearly disproves your judgement then you should reconsider it, should you not? This is where reason needs to prevail. One is not dealing with a “case”, one is dealing with people’s lives, mindsets, families, etc.

    I am due to appeal but I assure you the Judgement against me was not acquired through both parties being honest, something Judges should question, even if it’s not obvious at first. Most Claimants don’t bring frivolous cases unless they have been severely hurt and that should take a priority over leaning towards one because they present a more authoritarian position. That just seems like a recipe for unfair circumstances to prosper.

  106. Gordon Paul

    Now for some good news. My son was unfairly dismissed by a large Public Company. We took the case to the Manchester Employment Tribunal. The respondent company was represented by one of the largest group of solicitors in the country who specialise in Employment Law. The claimant was represented by a Lay Person, me, his 83 year old father. We not only won the case, the Judge also awarded reinstatement. This is rare. The respondent could easily have reinstated the claimant, as it is a large nation-wide organisation, but refused to do so. This incurred a further compensation payout. I am not allowed to divulge the figure of the compensation but it is very substantial.
    My advice is, if you have a strong claim, go ahead with it. You need a knowledgeable lay representative who can prepare thoroughly and present your case in a clear and logical way. We were treated fairly and courteously by the Manchester Tribunal. Good Luck.

  107. Ed

    I will produce a documentary about the corruption in the Employment Tribunal.

    Please get in touch with your stories and suggestions.

    • Ed

      Dear Naomi and Michael, is there any specific reason why you seem to have blocked my post related to producing a documentary about the corruption in the Employment Tribunal?

      Regards

      Ed

      • Michael

        Not blocked, but a number of comments appear to have got caught in our spam filter (unfortunately about 90% of potential comments are spam). I think I’ve found and rescued your comment (along with a few others).

        Just as a note for everyone reading: we will block comments that are abusive of other people posting or which make specific allegations against named individuals, including judges (I’m afraid we don’t have the resources or time to deal with the potential libel issues those involve). But otherwise we try to remain hands off.

  108. Ben

    Hi

    Some really interesting posts/comments

    From my experience, it most definitely appears the Employment Tribunal system is at worst unfair/corrupt, at best not fit for purpose.

    Absolutely agree that due to the way it is set up that it favours employers, especially larger firms/organisations who have massive resources and are aware of the impact of case law.

    I am hoping to get some advice, as I have sat by while my sister is going through an horrendous experience (Watford and EAT). I’ll try and keep it brief, which will be difficult as been going on for over four years now and still no sign of resolution.

    My sister was a NQT employed by Haringey, as a primary school teacher, had problems at school when she became unwell after visit to Gambia, on behalf of school as part of International Schools Project. She caught a virus which led to CFS and her becoming disabled. She was off sick long term, as school was failing a new headteacher took over and issues occurred, too long to go into detail. Effectively she was off for 8 months on sick pay and agreed to phased return, HT uncooperative and effectively changed her terms and conditions, her sick pay run out and she was unable to return due to stress, so was kept on without pay, claiming SSP. My sister put in grievance as contacted a lawyer, no grievannce processed followed, little HR input, no support from NUT as they employ NUT rep. In initial lawyer did not appear to know what to do and new lawyer advised ET claim, with access through insurance as no help from NUT even though a member, my sister advised that she had been bullied and discriminated against but claim out in was only around wages as she had not been dismissed let alone unfairly dismissed. This took best part of year to go to court, so sister although now disabled with health problems exacerbated by virus and stress, having to claim benefits although still employed. Upshot she lost claim at ET, even though barrister was talking about what she would do if she won and talking reasonable six figures, so when verdict came in massive disappointment, causing greater distress.

    Anyway, even though council had been completely unhelpful, even disclosure was requested and not forthcoming and were told off by ombudsman, they miraculously were able to send letters over Christmas, and dismissed her within weeks of getting ruling in their favour even though she had applied to EAT. Current lawyers did nothing in response to dismissal apart from put claim on hold in regard to unfair dismissal to concentrate on EAT for wages, as felt that needed to be dealt with first. She was a bit concerned by this and tried to challenge lawyers who eventually stopped working with her, as she had the audacity to question their work. So just before EAT, which has taken another year, has to get another lawyer who agrees that previous lawyers may not have being such a good job and may need to sue them.

    Anyway she wins at EAT and gets a paltry amount back just over £20,000 as linked to wages and effectively only employed for over a year due to being dismissed. It then takes nearly another year to get money and new lawyer has done nothing on unfair dismissal case, again causing issues. Costs on case coming to end of insurance £100,000 so needs to get another lawyer and new barrister and has to remortgage her home for £70,000 expected costs, this has been extended to over £100,00 due to Haringey’s legal rep employing delaying and unneccessary work even ET overran due to their tactics, another year and wins ET, however no resolution on awards taking months, currently up to date. Haringey appeal and been given leave to appeal, my sister can no longer afford to pay for legal counsel and most likely lose her house, current lawyers like all others willing to take on for exorbitant 30% on no win no fee even though already had in excess of £100,000

    What can she do?
    I would like to go to press as case has wide-ranging implications for teachers but advised cannot as case still live.
    Her condition/disability has only got worse as stress has a major impact on CFS and now has to use a walking frame and needs help with ADLs.

    Apologies for length but quite hard to summarise

  109. Douglas

    The introduction of fees has had a large impact upon claims.. so much so that the have dropped by a conservative figure of 60%

    If I owned a business that had dropped off by 60% I would have to make significant changes to my staffing levels..

    A reduction of 60% would be a good starting point, I am sure the Tribunal would uphold my redundancy plans.

    However I have found, to my astonishment that since the introduction of fees the number of employment judges has dropped by only 4%.

    This is even more remarkable when you consider a Judge is paid close to a 6 figure salary??????? Corruption most certainly..

    • Michael

      I think a distinction there has to be drawn between the salaried judges and the fee paid. Salaried judges are, effectively, permanently employed to judge cases. Fee paid judges are solicitors and barristers, mostly in private practice, who sit as and when requested by the tribunal service.

      Fees, and the reduction in case numbers, has meant a dramatic reduction in work for fee paid judges. I don’t have figures to hand, but anecdotally, people have gone from sitting 20-30 days a year to one or two.

      So, although the number of salaried judges hasn’t dropped significantly, that’s because the reduction has been absorbed by the fee paid.

      This is part of the point of having fee paid judges to begin with, it’s much easier to respond to changes in demand. It’s much harder to dismiss, for any reason, salaried judges. This (and I realise this might provoke raised eyebrows in this thread) is seen as an anti-corruption mechanism. The theory is that, if it’s too easy to dismiss a judge, there is a risk of the government applying pressure of the ‘Decide our way, or maybe you’ll be part of the next redundancy round’ type.

      • Douglas

        Micheal

        Good answer.

        So how many fee paid employment judges are there?

        How about reducing the number of full time regional employment judges by 60% that would save a few pennies?

        • Caseta

          Seems to me that Employment Tribunals are biased to employers. I suffered discrimination, harassment and victimisation at work. I complaint and investigation found I was being bullied and harassed but discrimination rejected but the organisation did nothing about it. On account of this, I was pushed into taking my claim to an ET, and had to be off work ill from stress. Unfortunately, I used someone who was not legally qualified to represent me and the Respondents took advantage of this. In the end my case was struck out for reason that the further and better particulars my representative produced did not meet the exact requirements of the ET.
          On my own, I appealed to the ET to reconsider the strike out of my case and re-list for a hearing but they said there was a danger a fair trial would not be possible and cases should not be kept in an ET to languish for years; so it remained struck out. I tried to appeal to the EAT on my own again but the fact I lacked legal training meant I was unsuccessful.
          The Respondents then applied for inflated costs of over £32k, the ET awarded them £10k for costs and wasted costs but made my representative jointly and severally liable. I appealed the decision on the basis that the ET erred in making me responsible for a cost award against my representative, further that it was my representative’s actions which caused my case to be struck out, also that my employer dismissed me on grounds of a “sham” redundancy. The ET kept the cost award but varied it so I was responsible for £3k. I got a small redundancy payment and used some of it to appoint a law firm to represent me for, among other things, unfair dismissal and victimisation.
          The ET now said that my case cannot proceed until I pay the current £3k cost award, knowing fully that I am unemployed and is unable to pay until I find work. This is the very ET which said cases should not languish in ETs when I applied to have my first case re-listed. The judge was quite harsh, telling me that the time I take to come to the ET with a claim, I should be looking for work, that a letter I wrote to the Respondents to ask them to give me time to find work so I can start paying the £3k was not well-written, that I was doing a Masters course because I want to find a “juicy” job in the city, that I was being wilful and not looking for work …….As far as I am aware, ETs have no right to enforce cost awards, they have to be enforced, like any other debt, through a County Court; a right the Respondent has written me to say they will be exercising.

      • Douglas

        OK here goes..

        There are 337 Employment Judges for England and Wales, Scotland has 32. These figures include the Presidents and REJs.

        Of the 337 in E & W – 135 are salaried that is 40%

        In Scotland of the 32 – 19 are salaried or 60%

        These basic figures do not add up…

        Fee paid Judges should not be sitting at all?

        There should also be a significant reduction in salaried Judges

        It is very simple, as the Judge in my case said “no work no pay”

      • Douglas

        Michael

        Here are the real figures.

        What a bunch of crooks

        Year Receipts Judicial Cost Per Receipt
        2010-11 218000 £176.64
        2011-12 183600 £216.31
        2012-13 65350 £511.69
        2013-14 37345 £894.93
        2014-15 18341 £1,643.55
        2015-16 18243 £1,565.03
        Change % -92% +786%

        • Mark Eaves

          Interesting figures, Douglas. Unless I am missing something, they do indeed suggest that a genuine ‘redundancy situation’ definitely exists. But, our hosts are right to point out that EJ redundancies could lead to perceptions of corruption: people might very well think that those selected for redundancy were those who did not do the government’s bidding, for example say, by being even-handed in their dealings with claimants and respondents. And we don’t want that, do we?

          However, I think I have a solution: select EJs for redundancy by independently- conducted random lottery. That should prevent any suspicions of bias, and such a redundancy process appears to me ‘fair and transparent’. It could be combined with consultation about retraining opportunities for the redundant judges: some of them might be able to sit in one of the many other tribunals. [ Though not asylum & immigration, perhaps: we read in the press that the government is planning a 500 % increase in the fees for these tribunals. ]

          Mark Eaves

          • Douglas

            Mark

            I am very glad someone else can see what the figures mean?

            To follow on from the destruction of access to justice for the poor and needy to line the pockets of the rich and greedy.

            I propose parity with the introduction of fees to see your Doctor £150 for an appointment and £2000 for a consultation would this weed out all those people claiming to be to sick to work!

  110. Mr C

    It’s not just that the Tribunal system is corrupt. It is inefficiently run and inept.The quality of service and hence justice depends on which office you are allocated to as certain offices have different sub-cultures. Having seen one or two Tribunal’s in my time for various reasons I would say it’s pretty much pot luck. But if you are unfortunately enough end up as a Claimant and end up before the Watford Tribunal against one of their ‘regular’ Respondents, God help you. Bent isn’t word for it. It’s beyond that. Shocking. I cannot elaborate for obvious reasons…

  111. Tanveer

    yes ,
    it is corrupt ,my solicitor took bribe from my employer to ruin my claim
    on my hearing day he refuse to go with me to court and force me to withdraw otherwise pay 3500.00 pounds .when I ask him to show my record they start harassment in streets .this is how justice system works in uk.

  112. Abdul

    I have said in one or two comments above, and in comments on other sites, that one should never trust comments from solicitors or barristers who say that ‘there is no corruption in Employment Tribunals’ or in other courts. I gave 3 reasons : a solicitor / barrister who complains about corruption will lose his next 1,000 cases ; he / she will never be promoted to be a judge ; and the financial benefit from spreading the legend that people who represent themselves have lost due to this, rather than due to judges being corrupt.
    Solicitors / barristers have always said that my first reason is mistaken ‘because judges would not do such a thing’. Well, this morning I read in Independent that a chamber of barristers have claimed exactly something like my arguments. Just read this piece from Independent in full, because it comes towards the end. Despite the whitewash, it makes for compelling reading.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/saudi-arabia-prince-abdul-aziz-janan-harb-high-court-king-fahd-secret-wife-a7086276.html
    Would I be wrong in assuming that if I have claimed bias against an Employment Tribunal on same basis, or more or less same basis, the chamber of barristers would have said that I talk nonsense, but when it hits them, the truth about bias of judges will come out in their own complaints at their own maltreatment by judges ?
    In fact, I would like also to turn this one around : Employment Judges can be biased not only AGAINST a solicitor / barrister / Claimant, but also FOR a specific solicitor / barrister /respondent. So about the respondent this is clear : clear-cut corruption. But how for a solicitor / barrister ? – For example, you have a hearing, and you find out that already before the hearing, the Employment Judge presiding over your case (which is actually the REJ) was scheduled to give, over dinner, a public talk for solicitors / barristers, with tickets costing a lot, in the offices of the company of solicitors which have represented the respondents in your case.
    In view of all this, I still very much stick to my belief : if one wants to appeal against a judgment, in a Tribunal outside London, one should use a solicitor / barrister from another city, may be from London itself, not from one’s own city – and from a company which have no branch in one’s town.

  113. Linda

    I am certain Birmingham Tribunal is corrupt or race issues. All the paperwork I provided were not used all went through Respondent paperwork even words without evidence. I trust being discriminated or took advantage of lack of legal explanations. if I get Respondent suing me I swear I won’t rest.

  114. High Spirit

    Can the lawyer or the solicitor become a judge? How impartial can he be when dealing with the claimant?

  115. Alan M Dransfield

    The EAT are record to me that if I hold evidence of wrongdoing by an ET Judge,I must write to the ET Concerned and give them the evidence and they WILL investigate. I have since written to the Exeter and Bristol ET claiming bad faith and corruption between an ET Judge and the Balfour Beatty Group ref my ET back in 2010. and despite 1/2 follow ups, they still ignore me.
    The ET and EAT claimed my Protected Disclosures were baseless and the redundancy notice stood.I can now prove the Balfour Betty Group committed wilfull perjury at my ET and EAT.
    One of my protected Disclosures was related to the Lightning Protection System (LPS) on the Exeter Chiefs Rugby Bridge.
    Balfour Beatty Claimed at the ET and EAT that this bridge was a Flagship Design for LPS and my allegation the bridge was devoid of any LPS was baseless.
    The EAT recently stated, it matters not if the buildings/structure is devoid of any LPS period the ET redundancy notice still stands.
    In essence the EAT are sticking their middle finger to the PIDA 98

    • Abdul

      “The EAT are record to me that if I hold evidence of wrongdoing by an ET Judge,I must write to the ET Concerned and give them the evidence and they WILL investigate.”

      One more of those ‘incredible’ (only that they are very credible) exposures of the massive corruption of the ET and EAT systems.

  116. Don

    http://administrativejusticereform.ca/unjust-by-design/
    The title chosen for the book, “Unjust by Design,” is a very strong statement from a former Chair of a Board who obviously knows the inner workings of tribunals. Unjust by Design can mean the following: corrupt, unscrupulous, unethical and possibly illegal. Therefore, anyone who finds themselves before these Boards is at the mercy of the Board’s agenda which has been set by the government.
    The Donner Prize encourages and celebrates excellence in public policy writing by Canadians, on topics of great importance to Canadians. Ron Ellis is an administrative law lawyer, teacher, academic, arbitrator, and former chair and CEO of a major administrative judicial tribunal. Unjust by Design was 1 of 5 books shortlisted for the annual Donner prize.
    This eye-opening interview pierces the veil of illusion and the rhetoric of tribunal independence.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc6aU6ddP4M
    http://www.oba.org/en/pdf/sec_news_pub_jul13_ste_ell.pdf

  117. Abdul

    There is the question, why do trade union representatives who serve as lay members on ETs, almost always side with the corrupt Employment Judge and with the (many times) corrupt, unjust Employer. One would have normally thought that they would be protecting innocent employees, but in a systematic way they side with employers, and especially with public sector employers. I have challenged Ken McCluskey in comments to newspapers to explain this ‘riddle’, but – of course – have received no reply.

    In the past, I myself have tended to explain this phenomenon by greed and corruption of TU reps. They are having huge personal benefits from remaining in this job, and it is worth their while doing what the Regional Employment Judge wants them to do.

    But I now think that there may be an added reason. A lot of TU reps are leftists in the sense that they want to see trade union rule over us. First step, they wish to return to a situation of state control, like state control of railways. If it comes to this situation, trade union leaders will again be kings, they will dictate who will be the managers and all other details of the running of such an industry (even much more than in Wilson days). The last thing which they need is some small honest employee standing up and denouncing their people in the management team as sexists or committing discrimination. They have a clear idea what is the correct place for workers and what is the correct place for management and for trade union top brass when the TUs run the show. Small individual employees should not be allowed to take cases as they wish to employment tribunals and win against the industry, when the bosses of this industry are to become, in reality, trade union appointees. So they might be already in the middle of a course, teaching employees through the ET system who is real boss.

    Of course, all this is mere conjecture and belief, not that I have firm facts behind my explanations. Of course it is totally irrelevant and not connected that Trotsky in 1919-1921 was shooting workers and soldiers who took too literally to their heart the idea that workers have “workers’ rights”. However, what is of interest is to try to guess why trade union barons and their strong-arm lieutenants (=lay representatives in ETs) oppress their own people rather than support them. I would still like Mr McCluskey, or other TU leaders, to give their side of the story about honest, persecuted employees systematically losing in ETs. It is not that the trade union barons have nothing to explain.

  118. peter

    I have just found this thread, I had the misfortune of a tribunal before a Judge Lewis several years ago regarding a claim against my employer for unfair dismissal via redundancy. I have seen his profile which stated ” he is a sage, who is willing to get his hands dirty” just t about says it all. Suffice to say I had a cat in hells chance. I was basically called a liar 3 times during the summing up by the so called judge ” in his opinion. All the other evidence was not mentioned by the judge such as the respondent inventing a consultation process that didnt happen and he had to drop from his evidence on day of court as the dates proved it couldnt have happened. etc etc it was a farce before it started .
    The EAT said they cant look at the facts ofv the case and said it was my fault the case failed as I did not have a solicitor , I even prepared a bundle for the appeal court and had a 3/10 thing before a Judge. Its been four years now , I asked for judgement from appeal court. I think the Honourable Justices have just used it to wipe their arses on.
    The problem was I had written a letter to the local newspaper about development of the local area and criticised the local MP. Big mistake, my employer a local engineering firm asked me why I had written the letter after calling me into the office. I thought nothing of it until I was selected for redundancy. At the group consultation my employer showed the front page of the local paper announcing redundancies at another company and called me by name asking if Ihad seen it!!!
    My employer took delight in singling me out to make an example of me and broke every law acting with impunity. The moral of the story is its not just the judges to worry about. After all judges and mps get a mere pittance compared to businessmen , bankers. They are just puppets for the rich and powerful.
    I managed to get another job. Unfortunately after a year I have been sacked for gross dismissal. I had an accident with a faulty llop. I reported it to manager and filled out a safety alert. I was suspended 31 days later then sacked . They claim I didnt report the accident at the time. I asked for the CCTV footage. Yes its been erased after 30 days. Looks like they going in for the finish.
    It appears to me the tribunal system is just a mere facade. Whilst there are a few cases where mistreated people get compensated this is like a shop front . but go inside and your liable to get a beating , and it wont be pleasant

  119. Lampeta

    There is no doubt that The Central London Employment Tribunal has no appetite to uphold discrimination law. Without recordings of the hearings, the employment judges are free to make up whatever judgement they like. The lack of checks and balances means that of course corruption is rife. There must be some decent employment judges but I fear they are in a very small minority. My ex boss admitted everything on the stand, and none of it made it into print in the judgement. The tell tale tap tap of the keyboard came to a halt whenever the witnesses got caught out – which was a lot. The judge winced for my boss when he heard him admitting it all. The judge simply didn’t record it. Without a record, it is a silly waste of time. The EAT looks dodgy too based on the laugh out loud sift letter which showed the judge had clearly not read the judgement. But it’s worth a shot. There must be some good people, it’s just having the luck or perseverance to get through to them. My big mistake was not to invite the press to the hearing. I would say make absolutely sure you have press there and make sure the tribunal is aware that there is press there. Also, campaign for recordings. Without them it’s a complete waste of time and far too open to abuse by employment judges. They should be monitored and appraised.

  120. alan m dransfield

    Dispite numerous followups from me ref corruption of an ET Judge, no one has responded to me. Wall of silence. Hardly conducive to to transparency sez me.

    • Abdul

      I believe that the Employment Tribunals system operates more like a powerful crime organization than like a justice system. The Employment Tribunal system, as it is, has the enthusiastic support of the Government, of all Government departments (not only of the Ministry of Justice and Home Office), of Parliament, of all main political parties, of local government, of the trade unions, of the police, and of just about all the media. No wonder that there is this “wall of silence” about which you complain.

  121. Gerald murphy

    I have just come across this thread. My own recent exsperience has left me absolutely let down by the whole process.
    Not only did all three respondents lie on oath, I exspected nothing less as it was their lies that led me there in the first place.
    The result went against me as it was deemed I had not given my employer enough reasonable time to resolve my grievance, however on the day before the tribunal I discovered that 2 key witness statements had been tamperpered with, airbrushed, rewritten with in total 10 paragraphs supporting my claim removed and 2 paragraphs supporting their case had been added. The final bundles all contained the new fraudulent documents. I only discovered what had happened when I crossed referenced the bundle statements with the original ones I received some time earlier in the draft bundle, sent through by their solicitor.
    I flagged it up in court and the CEO of my former employer said he had sent them to the solicitor by mistake! he described the statements he had completely amended as his own notes he had produced for case preparation. Now these were two identical documents complete duplicates other than all the imendments. in the bundle before the Judge sat case notes with not a single mark on in pencil or pen, nothing underlined or highlighted nothing not a mark, no change of title just a fraudulent self serving duplicate.
    My solicitor grilled him on the stand and he had no plauseable reason for amending the statements in the way he did. He was accused of lieing on oath and of dishonesty, there could be no other exspaination. When asked what he did when he discovered the mistake that in fact this “case preparation notes” had made it into the bundle, he said he thought oh no and contacted his solicitor this was roughly a week to 10 days before the tribunal date.
    Know one informed us or the court from their side as I say I discovered it the day before and we had to introduce the original statements on the morning of the case in the form of a supplementary bundle.
    The judge either didn’t get it or chose not to, my former CEO was accused of faking the documents and lieing about it trying to deceive the judge and the Court, it was surgested the only mistake he made was sending the original in the draft bundle.
    Now this is my first experience of a legal process but to have evidence tampered with in any legal process is surely unexceptable and for a judge to accept all be it it was a sever mistake for a CEO to make it was never the less a mistake, as the judge commented ” are we to think he thought he could get this by 2 solicitors 2 barristers a judge and all involved ? Completely missing the point that yes he did and yes he would of as the none of the above judge, barristers would have ever had sight of the original if I had not spotted the changes.
    The judge put this down to a cock up not a conspiracy.
    This was not a matter of law it was a matter of his option, an option that flew in the face of the evidence in front of him and the explanation given.
    My question is this and I would really appreciate any guidance help.
    I accept the outcome of the tribunal and I’m not looking to challenge it but Where and how can I go to get this element re exaimined, looked at again as it’s just wrong. Is there a lead judge, governing council or any route I can go down?

    Please let me know

  122. G.Murphy

    Where can you go if what to have an element of your case looked at, it was not over a point of law but the judges opinion on tampered with/ falsified evidence that was submitted in the final bundle.
    Even with overwhelming evidence and no plausible explanation the judge put it down to a mistake on my former CEO’s part. As I say this outcome was purely his opinion one that based on the evidence in front of him astounded me and my legal representation.
    The documents were clearly duplicated for the purpose of strengthening their case and misleading the judge and the tribunal.
    I just want some else to look at this element and evidence, where do I turn.
    Can someone please help and direct me.
    Thanks

      • Abdul

        “it is necessary to show that no reasonable tribunal could have drawn the inference or exercised discretion in the way that the employment tribunal did.”

        Theoretically there should have been no problem with this. Most cheatings by Employment Judges and Employment Tribunals are very blatant and crude. Any reasonable AND HONEST person who would have studied such a case would have called parts of judgments of ETs, and factual determinations by them, as “perverse” (or worse words, but of course our crooked British judges have sought different words to describe their crimes, “like “bias” or “perverse” instead of “criminal” or “deliberate cheating”, and once they got those ridiculous terms to operate, ‘bias’ or ‘perverse’, they have attempted to give these words a technical, rather neutral meaning, instead of the criminality which is actually behind them).

        The problem is that for the EAT, which many people believe is ‘a bit’ low on morality, the words “reasonable tribunal” may mean that which is reasonable from their point of view : a corrupt, criminal, biased, perverse, cheating, lying tribunal may well be their chosen “reasonable tribunal”, while an honest tribunal, one which is reasonable in my or your eyes, may be (just may be) in the eyes of the EAT “an idiotic tribunal”, “a tribunal without the required qualifications”, “an inexperienced tribunal”.

  123. M

    I am not stified about ET reconsidration and EAT permison to court of apeal and Court of apeal said we mot intrel to this case ET have to idification of my point of hearing and find fact story. now iam very cofused where to soved my problem.

  124. Abdul

    I read today that in Israel the Ombudsman for complaints from the public against judges has upheld a complaint against a judge for coming to a hearing with a judgment which had been fully written by the judge before the hearing has even started.

    I have a copy of an article by a barrister claiming exactly this point against an Employment Judge from the Leicester Employment Tribunal. No, it was not my case, but another case. It has never reached, I believe, an appeal to the EAT, because – I believe – the Claimant has been terrorized through the massive costs thrown on her.

    But had it reached the EAT, the verdict would have been, in all probability, that this was “undesirable but not significant enough”. Plenty of allegations of corruption against various ETs and against the EAT, but successive governments are relying on their usual dirty tricks mechanisms to prevent exposure of all this corruption. And of course no political party in the elections has fight against corruption on the agenda, proving a former Chancellor’s words – “We are all in it together”.

    The Israeli Ombudsman has gone for many complainants who have complained about bias of judges, insulting behavior by judges, etc. This cannot happen here in the UK : there are no mechanisms for fair and honest investigation of complaints.

  125. Ed

    Dear Naomi & Michael

    Do you believe that an Employment Judge that has in front of her medical evidence dated 2014, but in the judgement changes the date to 2014 in order to prove that the Claimant did not receive treatment at the material time, and, when notified, declares that “it is not in the interest of justice to reconsider, is corrupt?

    I look forward to your reply.

  126. Ed

    [apologies, that should be “changes the date to 2013”]

    Dear Naomi & Michael

    Do you believe that an Employment Judge that has in front of her medical evidence dated 2014, but in the judgement changes the date to 2014 in order to prove that the Claimant did not receive treatment at the material time, and, when notified, declares that “it is not in the interest of justice to reconsider, is corrupt?

    I look forward to your reply.

  127. Ed

    [apologies, that should be “changes the date to 2013”]

    Dear Naomi & Michael

    Do you believe that an Employment Judge that has in front of her medical evidence dated 2014, but in the judgement changes the date to 2013 in order to prove that the Claimant did not receive treatment at the material time, and, when notified, declares that “it is not in the interest of justice to reconsider, is corrupt?

    I look forward to your reply.

      • Ed

        I will continue to add more examples of might be corruption in the Employment Tribunal. So here is #2:

        Is an Employment Tribunal that advises an unrepresented Claimant that “An application for reconsideration can only be made in respect of judgments” corrupt?

        • Abdul

          IMO this is a standard method of cheating by Employment Judges : refusing to grant any application by the Claimant for a new PHR or for reconsideration of orders / instructions etc. The corrupt EJ understands that a Claimant would not submit a request or application unless it is good for the Claimant’s case, so as they – the Employment Judges – have positioned themselves to support the Respondents, they refuse the application or request by the Claimant.

          I myself submitted 21 days before the start of the Hearing a request for an urgent new PHR to discuss quickly about 12 issues from the first PHR in which new matter came to light involving (in my opinion) cheating / wrongdoing / hiding of documents by the Respondents, these not formally being known as going to happen to the EJ in the first PHR, thus affecting some of his decisions (these becoming known to me just then). An EJ has rejected my application on the basis that “it is time for the Hearing to go ahead” (which I have not disputed). I guess that plenty of other Claimants had a similar experience : this one is an easy one for the crooks.

          I guess that no judge in the EAT will feel disturbed about this corruption. They will probably use one of the following phrases : “The Employment Judge has exercised his / her discretion” ; “It had no significant impact on the outcome in this case” ; “The Claimant should have appealed this decision of the EJ if unhappy with it, but has failed to do it within the time limits” ; or something similar.

  128. Abdul

    In continuation of my reply to Ed (just above), about judges blocking any request for a new review of orders etc.

    This is very standard and very simple. The mind of corrupt Employment Judges work like that, when they ‘consider’ a request by a Claimant to hold a review of anything. “If the request by the Claimant has no merit and has no good points to raise, then I have to reject it. If the request has merit and has good points to raise, then it is 1000 times more clear-cut that I have to reject it”.

    It does not matter that the EJ who rejects it may not be the same EJ who cheats in the Hearing and in the Judgment : they work in packs. What matters is that they have decided – well in advance of any Hearing, of course – that making this particular Respondent win is in the interest of the local Employment Tribunal judges.

    In fact British Employment Judges approach hearings, and conduct of cases, in two altogether different ways, depending upon the one question : have they identified the Respondent as one for which it is in their interests to cheat (mostly : have they identified the Respondent as part of the Establishment), or are the Employment Judges indifferent to the fate of the particular Respondent.

      • Abdul

        Ed, apologies for a long reply to a short suggestion about writing a book.

        Senior policemen from Hillsborough are going on trial. Senior bankers are going on trial. These momentous events, and others similar, should give us some faint hope that one day also our corrupt Employment Judges will be put on trial (hopefully before a judge or a panel of judges drawn from among honest citizens who are not lawyers, rather than allegedly corrupt judges being judged by members of their own trade union or guild, the British judiciary). It is just possible that in the far future the freemasons who protect them may feel that they are more of a liability than an asset, so will ditch them despite the obligation to help fellow freemasons over any other consideration. It is possible that, due to unforeseen political turmoil, any political party acting as “the nasty party” will decide to drop the blanket protection which it affords to corrupt judges. It is possible that one day the trade unions will stop serving as a supporting plank to employment tribunal corruption.
        This, of course, is a long way away.

        (1) Under the British electoral system no new parties can emerge, which – in contrast – can happen under classic Proportional Representation. In a country like Israel from time to time an Anti-Corruption Party can and does appear for some forthcoming elections, and win even 20% of votes (and MPs) ; this cannot happen in the UK under the current electoral system, in which the same Establishment parties always rule.

        (2) It is impossible to establish an “Association of the victims of corrupt Employment Judges” : there is no person who has the time and the money to organize such a group, many victims of criminal EJs are left impoverished after their case and cannot subscribe any fees to help establish such a group ; many victims want to rebuild themselves psychologically after the trauma of the dishonesty against them which has been shown by the ET (and EAT), so they want to move forward which for them includes trying to forget about what has happened to them at the ET (and there is no psychological help to victims of those judges who are criminals). It is anyhow very difficult to organize as one group people whose grievance is based each on an individual case which must be studied in depth for a proof, unlike relatives of victims of a mass disaster where all the case are similar or most similar. Who got the time to study in depth an individual case, except for the cheating, corrupt Employment Judge who is being paid by the state to cheat in his / her judgment ?

        (3) Rich people who contribute to charities in fact contribute only to Establishment-approved charities. Don’t expect to get a good cheque from any British millionaire towards fighting for honesty and against corruption in Employment Tribunals..

        A Leveson-like Public Commission of Enquiry into corruption within the ET system will be the best way forward. If one day it materializes, we shall need to be vigilant :

        (A) That the remit of the Enquiry is wide enough. Specifically, we shall need to ensure that this Commission cannot hide under the standard cover (or escape route) of the crook : “We cannot go into individual cases”.

        (B) That the panel is composed of honest people, and without judges and lawyers. In the past, successive British Governments showed a lot of ingenuity in attempting to prevent proper investigations through viciously bad appointments to certain commissions of enquiry, and not only of the chairman.

        (C) That we ourselves are called to give evidence. If we are not vigilant, the crooks will organize that the Commission will hear only lawyers (as I said in other posts, lawyers are not in a position to tell the truth about corruption among the judiciary).

        (D) That the Commission is given enough resources and enough time for its enquiries.

        (E) That we – the victims – are being given some financial assistance by the state to consult lawyers before testifying to the Commission (for those of us who so wish), such consultations to be done in private and without having to supply the names of our lawyers (to prevent the syndrome of those lawyers risking ‘losing their next 1000 cases’).

        Writing a book can serve a few useful purposes, even if it does not bring immediate justice. But it should be researched and written by young, energetic writer/s, which is exactly the opposite of me. We who write on this blog – victims (or is it survivors ?) can usually write only about one case, our own case : we need researchers, probably academic, who would have through grants – hopefully – enough finance for their work, so they will have time and money to move around the country and interview all of us. I do not believe that these can be British academics, because just imagine that they are British lawyers : they will see their academic career destroyed, and if they are practicing lawyers ‘they will lose their next 1000 cases’. The best chances are for foreign academics : hopefully (a lot of ‘hopefully’ about our struggle) one day some foreign university will be bold enough to establish a special “Dept for Research of Comparative Corruption in Western Countries” (there is so much corruption, can easily be enough for an independent Dept). Then some, within the branch of ‘Judicial Corruption’, may decide to take on corruption in British Employment Tribunals.

        Meanwhile I think that this internet site is serving a most important purpose. By writing here we are doing half the work for any future academic who may want to research the subject. I do not pretend to know anything about it, but I believe (only believe) that Naomi and Michael must have come under pressure, probably ‘informal’, mounted by some within the judiciary, to put an end to this blog. It is to their eternal credit that they keep it open, and I wish more people would actually write in it about their experiences. Even if it takes 500 years until the subject of British ET corruption is properly researched, if this blog is being made available to those future researchers, their work will be of much more value than if they do not look at it. Well done Naomi and Michael for starting this blog and for keeping it open.

  129. Ed

    Abdul, what you say above about Tribunals blocking request for a new review of orders is so right, but the point I trying to make actually refers to a SUPER-PORKY served by the Employment Tribunal London Central to an unrepresented Claimant, that “An application for reconsideration can only be made in respect of judgments.”

    You can actually make an application for reconsideration in respect to any judgment, decision, direction or order.

    Maybe Naomi or Michael would like to say something about this.

  130. Ed

    This is what John Hopper says about Calciopoli in his book “The Italians:”

    “No money was ever shown to have changed hands. The system worked because the managers concerned had created a belief that they were so powerful and influential they could make or break the careers of anyone else in the game. And the very belief that their word was law gave them the power and influence they needed to secure their aims. It was a perfect example of a mafia in the loosest sense of the word; of the sort of inclusive (yet exclusive), anti-competitive and perhaps family-like arrangements that abound in Italy.”

    Any resemblance with the Employment Tribunal is purely coincidental.

    • Abdul

      Ed, regarding your comment about the quote from John Hopper.

      “No money was ever shown to have changed hands”. —

      In the UK, especially in Employment Tribunals, we do not know whether any money changed hands : when the anti-fraud agency refuses to investigate, and there is no other agency which can investigate, then surely a case like that will never surface. And if someone did investigate and did find evidence, he might be at risk to his life, in my considered estimate.

      Refusing to investigate, actually refusing to admit that a complaint has been submitted, seems to be a calculated policy by the Serious Fraud Office. The SFO is basically a puppet of Government. Refusing to investigate has the immediate benefit that within a few years incriminating documents can legally be shredded, and also judges can claim that the time allowed for pursuing them in law has expired.

      Submitting a complaint against Employment Judges to the local police is a bad idea for many reasons, among them : the Judges and most of the police chiefs are probably together in the local free masons ; most complaints against Employment Judges to the police will involve wrongdoing by the Local authority, which is the paymaster of the police who are supposed to investigate it ; Local police do not have the money and the needed talent and expertise of staff for dealing with complicated corruption cases ; and there are more reasons.

      If we want to catch those Employment Judges who do take bribes, the only way is to establish National, Unified, Specialized, Independent Police Unit to investigate corruption and dishonesty of judges.

      Israel has always been boasting that its justice system is based on the British (inherited from the British Mandate). And indeed so : independent ombudsman and independent police investigations do catch, from time to time, judges who accept bribes.

  131. Abdul

    In my comment of 7 June 2017 I have mentioned the Israeli Ombudsman (or may be it is Commissioner, but in any case this is the same) for Complaints from the Public against Judges. Quite a few Israeli Employment Judges have been found by him to be at fault. It is true that the Ombudsman or Commissioner (who I think is not a judge or lawyer, but I am not sure) cannot sack judges, but as a minimum he / she can name offending judges.

    I read this morning, for example, that a solicitor has complained to him against a District Judge for saying to him in court unwarranted rude words. The District Judge has denied this accusation. It is reported today in the Israeli press that the Ombudsman has found for the Solicitor and against the District Judge, saying that the Judge has lied to the Ombudsman when denying it. He says that the main reason for his unacceptable behavior in court was his wish to bully the solicitor. On top of that he found in favour of the solicitor on another complaint against the same judge, that this judge reached a procedural decision on an application of the solicitor without following the procedure required by the rules.

    So the name (and picture) of this District Judge is in the papers. On top of that, the Ombudsman formally sends his findings against this judge to the President of the Israeli Supreme Court and to the Israeli Minister for Justice. Probably nothing else will happen to this District Judge (after all, Israel follows the British tradition of public administration and of law, which means that corruption rules ok). But at least there is public shaming – and the publicity will work to warn future litigants to be alert to his behavior and judgments, and to use these findings to bolster appeals against his judgments.
    This reminds me of a similar case involving an Employment Judge, regarding a case heard in Birmingham some 4 years ago. The Claimant was very distressed by the behavior of the Employment Judge, and there was also a public appeal against this EJ to the President of the Employment Tribunals. But on top of that, the Claimant has submitted a direct complaint about his behavior to this President of the Employment Tribunals. The information which I have is that the EJ has denied saying what the Claimant alleged that he had said during the Hearing. But there have been witnesses, and two of them have signed affidavits that the EJ had said exactly those words which he has denied saying (one of the two was a journalist). According to my information (which I believe to be correct but I did not see the documents) the President of the Employment Tribunals has found for the Claimant, saying that he believed that the said EJ had used those offending words despite the denial by the EJ.

    But here comes the difference from Israel : he also said that he did not think that using those words of the EJ, and the lie, were important or significant in any way to the conduct of the Hearing or the outcome of the case. So there it ends, basically it is all secret : no information to the public about the finding against this EJ, no consequences whatsoever to him – no one knows about this decision. When one thinks that there have been other decisions and complaints against same Employment Judge over the years, it shows just how much the judiciary has organized the system, the various mechanisms supposedly arranged to prevent corruption and wrongdoing, to protect judges from any consequences of (their rather regular) alleged corruption and wrongdoing.

  132. Douglas

    Just watched episode 3 of the new Poldark series, although fictional Warleggan’s corrupt judgment was a horrible reminder of the one I received.

  133. Douglas

    Just watched episode 3 of the new Poldark series, although fictional Warleggan’s corrupt judgment was a horrible reminder of the one I received. awful.

  134. Abdul

    The BBC has shown a number of dramas which have depicted vicious judicial corruption. I have not watched Poldark, but the series which is most prominent in this respect is Judge John Deed. This series show the overall combined corruption : corrupt judges, corrupt politicians, corrupt civil servants, corrupt policemen – all working together to achieve corrupt judgments on behalf of the powerful and rich. Luckily there is Judge John Deed (and a few others).

    My opinion is that the BBC is allowing such episodes about corrupt judges to be screened as its lip service to the battle against corruption, which it purports to conduct. It either does not dare, or has no interest, in fighting judicial corruption in real life. The BBC (and Channel 4, I believe) had broadcast some programmes about corruption and wrongdoing by the police, but never about the judiciary. I assume that if you ask a BBC person about the BBC’s contribution to the fight against our judicial corruption, he would answer in one or two ways : either pointing you to ‘Judge John Deed’ programmes, or else just denying that there is a problem of judicial corruption and saying that you have to prove it (and when you give him / her the proofs, refusing to investigate them). Victims of British judicial corruption are badly let down by the BBC and be the rest of the British media : the limits of ‘free investigative journalism’ are tightly drawn to protect judges.

    In fact, ‘Judge John Deed’ is biased in favour of the British judiciary, due to the imaginary figure of Judge John Deed. The corruption which it depicts, of judges-politicians-civil servants-police, does exist, of course, but an honest Judge John Deed does not exist in the UK. When foreigners view this series, they may think that Judge John Deed, and barrister Jo Mills, are typical to the British justice system, while in reality they simply do not exist.

    All of us victims of Employment Tribunal criminality and corruption will continue to be reminded, quite frequently, of the way that they were cheated by the Employment Judge and the Tribunal – and yes, it is most painful to remember those events. Douglas, I fully sympathize with you.

  135. Douglas

    Not corrupt ho ho ho…
    stop Press: Supreme Court provides huge employment boost for Employment lawyers as part time judges.

    Dickens: the sole purpose of the law is to make money for itself.

      • Abdul

        The last thing that I would suspect the Supreme Court of, when such a decision is made, is of having honest, decent motives or reasons. This is not normally on their menu, I believe.

        Attention has already been drawn, by Douglas and others, to the fact that Employment Solicitors have been screaming over fall in their income due to less claims being submitted in Employment Tribunals. This is a very valid point, and a pointer into the mind of the judges.

        However, there is another interest group : trade union officials. You see, plenty of trade union officials serve as the “trade union representative” on Employment Tribunals. Mostly after retirement, but not always. British lawyers earn a fortune per hour, so they do not notice that in fact the pay which these trade union officials get per day in court is massive : it may be nothing for a solicitor, but it is massive compared to income of most British workers (and certainly it is massive when these TU officials=lay members are retired from their main job compared to the average daily pension of most workers). So many trade union officials are very fond of this lovely sinecure, just sitting there, saying “Yes” to all the cheats of the corrupt Employment Judge, and getting a lot of money (and prestige) for this ‘job’, and if they are far from their home, presumably also a hotel and meals. So suddenly it was not enough for them to cheat with the corrupt Employment Judge (of course, not all trade union representatives are cheats, and not all Employment Judges) – the work was not there because the number of claims fell dramatically due to the introduction of those outrageous fees. No wonder the trade unions became concerned. Poor Trade Union representatives have been missing some of their income. The Supreme Court has mobilized to save the flag.

        If the trade unions cared about the workers, they would have cared about alleged systematic cheating of impoverished, honest workers by very rich and very corrupt, dishonest Employment Judges. The anger at the scandal of the fees should be secondary compared to the outrage of the alleged corrupt Employment Judges and ETs. But at least many trade union officials do not care about poor employees, but only about their own income. In fact, a few comments which I have seen said that the minute that an employee decides on Employment Tribunal action, his officials begin to treat him almost as an enemy, as a liability due to them having to give this employee real services, not just collecting the membership fees. If I am mistaken, I shall be glad to hear that.

        By the way, I believe that ACAS is on the same level as those many trade union officials : those from whom I have heard think that at least in some cases, maybe very specific ones, they are not doing any real effort to settle the dispute. I do not say that necessarily they are weak in effort in those cases in which may be ‘they caught an advance hint’ that the Employment Judge will fix the Claimant and will teach him / her a lesson. But they collect their wages, and it gives jobs for the boys and girls.

  136. Howard Fredrics

    In my case, the ET Judge was previously a long time employee and chief legal counsel of the organisation where the Chair of the Board of Governors of my employer and been the CEO for many years, including when the Judge was employed, and the Judge received a reference to obtain his post as ET Judge from this Chair of the Board. Nevertheless, the ET Judge refused to recuse himself from my case. Not corrupt???

    • Abdul

      This was, in all probability, a deliberate appointment of the ET Judge for your case. I have mentioned in previous posts that Employment Judges are ‘good employers’ : they employ tens and tens of different cheating techniques against Claimants. This one (of employing judges or lay members of the Tribunal who have strong connection, or connections, to the employer/s in a case, and various vested interests in the employer/s winning the case) is a widely used one.

      The great surprise in your case is not that such appointment has been made, this being – as I have noted – a dirty trick used regularly against Claimants. The surprise is that you have discovered the fact at such an early stage. Usually most Claimants who ever discover the facts regarding this particular dirty trick against them (out of the so many), discover them well past the 42-days limit for submitting an appeal.

      Now if you have taken these facts to an appeal, let’s say that you have reached even the Supreme Court, not only the EAT, the chances are (in my opinion) that an appeal on this point would be lost. These judicial bodies are co-operating fully with ETs in this corruption. They would have said that ‘This is not material’, that ‘The people / judges involved are responsible enough not to let such matters affect their judgment’, that ‘ET judges are very careful not to be biased’.

      Every year there are a number of cases in which a challenge is made to the Tribunal or to the EJ to recuse themselves / himself due to bias and conflict of interests. I am not a solicitor, but according to what I have read or heard, they never agree to recuse themselves. The reason for this is clear : they feel safe that whatever the conflict of interests and biased revealed by the Claimant, the British judicial system will be fully supportive of such corrupt Employment Judges (in contradiction of Clause 6 of the ECHR, but they rely on us not having enough money to continue the challenge, and on European Judges – if it comes to it – cheating to support the Supreme Court).

  137. Pingback: Supreme Court says ET fees are unlawful - Employment Tribunal ClaimsEmployment Tribunal Claims
  138. Abdul

    This post is all about the need to introduce lie detector tests into Employment Tribunals, and ways to ensure their reliability.

    In Israel there is an overall dismay and concern over endemic, massive corruption within the Police. The Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee responsible for supervising the Police has demanded that about 1600 top Israeli policemen will undergo a yearly lie detector test. Until now they have been subjected only to a lie detector test regarding security matters (“Have you been in touch with a foreign agent ?”, etc.), and now he wanted them to be subjected to tests also about their behavior / “disciplinary” matters (“Have you sexually touched any female worker of whom you are the boss ?”, “Have you taken any money from suspects ?”, etc). As can be expected, there was a massive outcry from the top policemen. I have read, approximately one month ago, that a compromise has been agreed : only the top 400 policemen in Israel will be subjected to these “disciplinary” lie detector tests (on top of the security lie detector tests), plus a few other officials who hold high relevant jobs connected with the police but not formally policemen. They will have to undergo those lie detector tests once in every 5 years (so presumably the 5-year interval will give them a few more years to work and to accrue their lucrative pension and to resign just before the next test – if they think that they are going to fail it). On top of that, every single candidate to a job in the police which is from a certain rank and higher will have to undergo both types of lie detector test (security and “disciplinary”) before he can be considered for appointment or promotion to this high job or rank.

    Approximately 2-3 months ago, I had read that it had been suggested within the Israeli cabinet, in view of the many leaks from its confidential discussions, that all cabinet members and deputy ministers will undergo, once a year, a lie detector test to verify if any of the Cabinet Members was behind any leaks. This suggestion received public backing from a few ministers, including the Minister for Justice and the equivalent there of the Home Office Minister, on condition that also all top Civil Servants would undergo such test once a year, as technically they also have the ability to leak such crucial documents and information. I do not believe that it will pass into practice, especially because ministers from a few parties seem to be lukewarm about it, but it is noteworthy that Cabinet Ministers responsible to relevant Ministries supported the idea in public, not worrying that they would be described as “stupid’, ‘an ignoramus’, ‘lacking basic knowledge of the risks of technology’, etc.

    In the Israeli army, and in Mossad, if I understand correctly, lie detector tests are a regular, routine matter for all top officers. They are also used regularly in various specific internal investigations (which might be of critical importance).

    I raise these facts for comparison and learning purposes. I do not think that Israel is lagging behind Britain in technology and in deep understanding of technology. If in Israel they think that lie detector tests are good enough at least as a significant support for investigations, they should be good enough for Britain. We should stop being bullied by the clique of cheating judges, those who feel massively threatened by the possibility of the introduction of lie detector tests. They try to camouflage their self-interest (=the preservation of their option to cheat whenever they think that it is in their interest) by claiming that ‘it was proven’ that lie detector tests can be manipulated. Well, even if it is so, which would be disputed and can be minimized, the interests of justice should overrule the nasty self-interest of corrupt judiciary. Lie detector tests are a superb weapon not only for obtaining justice, but also specifically against the criminality and corruption of judges. I would suggest that while officially we are being told by the British corrupt Establishment (the judiciary is its mainstay) that lie detector tests are unreliable and therefore inadmissible in court, secretly (maybe even not so secretly) the security services are putting them to good use in their own line of business when it is in the interests of the Establishment.

    In my opinion there is far greater chance of getting justice in Employment Tribunals through the compulsory use of lie detectors : even if sometimes – let’s assume for the sake of argument – the crooks (corrupt Employment Judges / lay members of the ET, and corrupt lying witnesses of the Respondent) will get away with lies, overall there is much greater chance for a truthful judgment than if we rely on the alleged IQ / expertise / experience / honesty of the EJ and the lay members.

    There are three fields within Employment Tribunals practice in which the introduction of lie detectors has been urgently needed already years ago, but has been resisted by those who have something to hide : Employment Judges (supported in this by the entire British Establishment, which is based on corruption and therefore will have a lot to lose from an objective system of finding the truth).

    (1) In many Hearings one side or the other believes that those from the other side were telling lies, amounting to perjury, or that he / she was telling the truth but that there are no witnesses to what he / she tells in his / her evidence, or no witnesses who agree to come to Court to support him / her. In such cases it is usual that he / she requests (at least in many cases) a lie detector test – on himself / herself – with any operator which the ET would send him / her to. He / she simply wants to prove that he / she is telling the truth. But currently he / she encounters utter contempt from the Employment Judge : either the EJ simply ignores such requests, or – in the best case – orally dismisses them, using language full of contempt and arrogance.

    (2) In view of the many complaints about corruption of Employment Judges and Employment Tribunals (as attested to by so many victims, or survivors, on this blog), there is a need to put Employment Judges (including lay members) to a lie detector test at the request of one of the sides. They will be asked : Did you lie in your Judgment ; Did you forge the notes submitted by you pretending that these are your notes taken during the Hearing ? ; Did you fabricate something specific in the Judgment? Did you shout at the Claimant during the Hearing? (and was this done deliberately to intimidate him/her ?); etc. Of course, it is necessary that questions put to them will be suggested by and agreed with the side who demanded this test (usually the Claimant), otherwise the honesty of the test will be in doubt. So cheating by the Employment Judge (and the lay members of the ET) during the Hearing and in the Judgment will face the scrutiny of a lie detector test.

    (3) There is a need to verify that judges have not been nobbled, and that they have not fixed the outcome of the Claim in advance (usually : with the Respondents and their Solicitors or barristers). Our aim should be : preventing the numerous advance conspiracies of Employment Judges with Respondents.

    (4) There is the need to subject the Respondents and their witnesses (and Claimants and their witnesses, if the Respondents so request) to a lie detector test, when the Claimant believes that these Respondents and their witnesses are telling lies.

    So how can we minimize potential mistakes caused by use of lie detector tests on judges and witnesses ?

    First of all, let’s note : When I have read about objections to reliability of lie detector tests, these always were concentrated on the ability of the crook to tell a lie but to come out of the test as if he / she had told the truth, not about someone who told the truth but has been declared to be a liar by the test. So it is quite comforting to think that in the great majority of lie-detector tests, maybe in 100% of them, if you tell the truth – this will be the verdict of the test. When it comes to particular, individual cases in which the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Judge are bent on cheating in favour of the Respondent, the lie detector test result is about 100% more reliable as to its accuracy, honesty and justice than the judgment of the Employment Tribunal.

    Secondly, there are a raft of measures which we can take to enhance even further the likelihood that the lie detector test will catch the liars as liars :

    (1) Each side will have 3 points at which they can demand a lie detector test to the other side : (A) within 2 weeks of submission of written witness statements. (B) Within 2 days of the end of the concluding speeches of both sides at the end of the Hearing (this means that all judgments in ETs will become written judgments, submitted not earlier than 2 weeks after receipt of lie detector tests results, so that judges can incorporate those results into their judgments). (C) Up to 2 weeks before the start of an appeal in the EAT.

    (2) Judges will be subject to lie detector tests in same way. Also judges who conduct the preliminary rounds of the case (CMD, PHR, correspondence) will be subject to them if so required by any side.

    (3) The questions put before each person should not be limited in number. If there is a need for 50 questions 0r 100 – so be it.

    (4) These questions should be significant in the eyes of the side who demands them. For this purpose, it should be each side who decides which questions will be put, in the lie detector test, to members of the ET and to witnesses. If the EJ wants to add his own questions – fine, but not at the expense of replacing questions demanded by any side.

    (5) In view of the very real possibility that bribery or pressure will be applied to the professionals who conduct those tests, each test will be conveyed directly to so as to be simultaneously performed by 3 separate, independent professionals (from 3 separate firms), simply to reduce the possibility that one bribed professional falsely announces “Said the truth” when in fact he should have announced “Lied”.

    (6) Each of the three professionals will send a copy of the full questions and the graphic results, plus his / her conclusions, to both sides, not only to the judge.

    (7) It is claimed that people can be taught to cheat the lie detector test. Maybe we cannot completely eliminate this risk, but as I said, it is minute compared to the real danger of cheating by the ET (or of a genuine mistake by them, but mostly it is cheating). However, we can still do something about it. Let’s formally outlaw teaching and writing to the public about ways to cheat the lie detector test. In the same way that child pornography is outlawed, or that illegal screening of football matches is now on the verge of becoming truly illegal – and subject to prosecution. More than that, it should become illegal also from the side of ‘the consumer’ : it should be illegal to receive tuition about outwitting lie detector tests. In each lie detector test there should be first a compulsory question : Have you received tuition or advice about how to cheat a lie detector test ?

    (8) I have read that taking certain drugs can help one cheat such a test. Very simple : everyone who undergoes a lie detector test will have to supply also a urine test, to check whether he / she took beforehand any of these substances. I can see you saying : ‘What, their Honourable Pomposity the Judges are going to do a urine test ?!”. The answer should be unequivocal :”Yes !”. If they don’t like it, let them remain solicitors / barristers, they do not have to be judges. Such urine tests should be part of the job of ‘a judge’. Another way of looking at it :”If you have nothing to hide, what’s the problem ?”.

    (9) I have read that a person who wants to tell a lie but come out as someone who tells the truth in a lie detector test, can outwit the machine by pricking himself / herself with a needle. This is an example of the nonsense arguments made all in order to prevent the subjection of the Establishment to such tests. Well, just search the person taking the test before taking it, and fix on the table some raised solid metal bars under which the hands of the person taking the test will be during the entire test, throughout.

    (10) The right of Claimants to ask judges questions should extend also to questions about other cases in which the same judge was involved, even if they had nothing to do with the Claimant.

    (11) I can see you saying :”Who will pay for that, with all the delays and extra tests involved ?”. That’s easy : (1) the Government. (2) the Employers. By the way, the Government can start raising money for this purpose by cutting the fatcat salaries of all judges by £60,000 per year, and of the trade union barons of the judges by £100,000 per year. I have read recently that in Israel, in which statistics are well recorded, judges are by far (I mean by far) the occupation group with the highest state pension. Let’s claw back, retrospectively, the vast pension that British judges are receiving, and put the money into paying for lie detector tests in Employment Tribunals. And surely it is not difficult to find a way to make the employers pay.

  139. Abdul

    To put the situation in Employment Tribunals as I believe that it is into plain words, through description of one imaginary case.

    There is a case before EJ XYZ. Prior to the start of the Hearings, the shadowy representatives of the Establishment say to EJ XYZ :”The Government requests that the Respondents will win this case”. EJ XYZ answers : ”No problem, consider it as done. The case will be won by the Respondents. How dare the Claimant even bring such a case against such honourable employers ! I shall award full costs against him”.

    Then before he has time to issue his Judgment, these same shadowy figures come back to him and say :”Circumstances have changed and now the Government urgently needs the Claimant to win the case, not the Respondents”. EJ XYZ answers : ”No problem, consider it as done. The case will be won by the Claimant. Oh these stinkers, the Respondents, I shall teach them a lesson – to behave so aggressively and without consideration towards a poor, suffering Claimant. I shall award full costs against them”.

    Still just before the Judgment has been issued in this case, yet again the shadowy Establishment figures inform EJ XYZ :”Circumstances have changed again. The Government now requires that you determine that both sides behaved honourably, and that the entire conflict was a misunderstanding stirred up by the machinations of one Kim Jong-un”. EJ XYZ answers : ”No problem, consider it as done. Both sides will be exonerated. This nasty Kim Jong-un, I wish his next missile will drop dead in the middle of the ocean, and anyhow, I shall award each side costs of £1.- against the said Kom Jong-un for making a nuisance of himself and interfering in British industrial relations”.

    Case successfully concluded (successfully for our ruling Establishment, which is what matters in real life).

  140. Ed

    Abdul, this is amusing but I don’t think the Government has much to do with it in this way. I’m reading the Oxford “Very Short Introduction” to Corruption by Leslie Holmes. A lot of very useful information on the subject, as one can imagine. For example:

    “An oft-cited formula in corruption analyses is Robert Klitgaard’s equation,

    C = M + D – A

    where
    C stands for corruption, M for monopoly,
    D for discretion, and
    A for accountability.

    According to this approach, the more discretionary powers officials have, the more corruption there will be— unless those officials are highly accountable.” (p.74)

    The Employment Judges have:

    * Complete Monopoly on adjudicating employment cases
    * Total de facto Discretion in making findings of fact, ordering (or not) disclosure of documents etc. – which is often abused
    * Little to none Accountability – it is extremely hard to get a Regional Employment Judge to even respond to allegations of bias or misconduct and most appeals in the Employment Appeal Tribunal are struck out before being even considered; of those considered, very few are successful.

    Monopoly + Discretion – Accountability = Corruption

    • Abdul

      Ed, when I wrote this post, my intention was to concentrate on the moral and professional “elasticity” or is it “multi-faceting” of British Employment Judges, not on who actually orders or requests a specific judgment to go his way. So “Government” is just a short-cut phrase : instead of it you can insert “Ministry of Justice”, “Home Office”, “Ministry of Trade and Industry”, “Exchequer / Finance Ministry”, “Ministry of Education”, “Local authority which is in favour with the EJ”, “Trade union of the Judges”, “Political party which is in favour with the judge”, “friend of the EJ or of another EJ”, etc, this ‘etc.’ covering various other Establishment bodies.

      I shall comment separately on the other part of your post.

Post a comment

You may use the following HTML:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>