The New Leader Of The Opposition Party/
News2 mins ago
Miscarriage of justice
In an Employment Tribunal proceeding in 2002, the Respondent submitted and relied on documents it claimed were contemporaneous and authentic. The Tribunal accepted the authenticity of the documents. In its findings of fact, the Tribunal stated a preference for the evidence of the Respondent witnesses. To conclude, the Tribunal found in favour of the Respondent.
In High Court proceedings in 2007, the Defendant - the Respondent in 2002 - submitted and relied on the same documents and witness statements as in the Employment Tribunal proceeding in 2002. During the proceedings, the Defendant changed its stories, when it realised it could sustain neither its original claims nor the authenticity of the documents. Accepting the new claims, the judge ruled that the Defendant was correcting its evidence. The judge determined that the documents were in fact draft documents the Defendant had compiled for its own use.
The Claimant applied for permission to appeal. Initially, details on the court website stated that, "Awaiting a judicial decision on the papers." Some weeks later, details on the court website changed to, "Case passed to List Office." "Awaiting a hearing - see hearing status."
When the Claimant telephoned the Court of Appeal, an official informed him that a judge had granted permission for his appeal. Subsequently, the court altered the details on its website and denied granting permission to appeal - the Claimant printed the details granting permission to appeal. When the Claimant wrote to the court, it took 2 years for the Court of Appeal to respond. In its response, it is clear that the court has altered and falsified the details in its database.
The Attorney General, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the Office for Judicial Complaints, the office of the Lord Chief Justice, etc. have refused to look into the case.
What can he do? I fear for his sanity.
In High Court proceedings in 2007, the Defendant - the Respondent in 2002 - submitted and relied on the same documents and witness statements as in the Employment Tribunal proceeding in 2002. During the proceedings, the Defendant changed its stories, when it realised it could sustain neither its original claims nor the authenticity of the documents. Accepting the new claims, the judge ruled that the Defendant was correcting its evidence. The judge determined that the documents were in fact draft documents the Defendant had compiled for its own use.
The Claimant applied for permission to appeal. Initially, details on the court website stated that, "Awaiting a judicial decision on the papers." Some weeks later, details on the court website changed to, "Case passed to List Office." "Awaiting a hearing - see hearing status."
When the Claimant telephoned the Court of Appeal, an official informed him that a judge had granted permission for his appeal. Subsequently, the court altered the details on its website and denied granting permission to appeal - the Claimant printed the details granting permission to appeal. When the Claimant wrote to the court, it took 2 years for the Court of Appeal to respond. In its response, it is clear that the court has altered and falsified the details in its database.
The Attorney General, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the Office for Judicial Complaints, the office of the Lord Chief Justice, etc. have refused to look into the case.
What can he do? I fear for his sanity.
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ebo_essel. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Just had a word with the Claimant. The name of the judge was HHJ Peter Coulson (as he then was. Now Mr Justice Coulson). The name of the Claimant is Eric Hammond.
The name of the Defendant is International Network Services.
I have seen the papers in the case. It is evident that the Defendant failed to sustain any of its claims. In fact, to some questions, the Defendant provided 3 or 4 mutually exclusive answers. More importantly, the court manager's explanation is inconsistent with established court procedures.
The name of the Defendant is International Network Services.
I have seen the papers in the case. It is evident that the Defendant failed to sustain any of its claims. In fact, to some questions, the Defendant provided 3 or 4 mutually exclusive answers. More importantly, the court manager's explanation is inconsistent with established court procedures.
when i said "who is he" i wasn't asking for his name or anything, just that you mentioned lots of people in your post (claimant, defendant,The Attorney General, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the Office for Judicial Complaints, the office of the Lord Chief Justice) and i wasn't sure which one you were referring to
1 to 7 of 7
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Can The Media Learn How To Pronounce...
News6 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Help With Key Fob Switch Wiring
How it Works17 mins ago
