Humiliated Again by the UK Legal System

Opinion by Mathew Carr

Feb. 20, 2023 — It’s yet another humiliation.

I’ve been trying to get the UK judiciary to see my point of view for almost three years.

Now, the Employment Appeal Tribunal appears to want me to start another complaint – begin yet another investigatory process.

The Predatory Delay of Collaborative Global Climate Action Seems Endless

During the past few weeks, I’ve been trying to find out whether Mrs Justice Eady DBE [Dame (Commander of the Order) of the British Empire] and president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal had properly investigated what I allege are multiple miscarriages of justice in my climate-whistleblowing case.

She said she would look into it.

From the judiciary’s point of view so far, my case apparently is a “non-whistleblowing” and “ordinary” unfair-dismissal case, which I lost. I got fired because of my lack of competence, so it seems, according to that view.

Surely, because she is not only president of the appeal tribunal known as the EAT, a woman and a “Dame,” but also a “Commander of the Order,” Mrs Justice Eady will have done a thorough job.

Actually, perhaps not, according to an e-mailed answer from the EAT on Feb. 16, 2023 — though it might not be Eady’s fault, entirely:

“No, Mrs Justice Eady has not seen your email of 8 Nov,” an EAT member of staff close to Justice Eady said by email.

I’d been trying to get the EAT to acknowledge the lack of due process, the miscarriages of justice, in the handling of my case by the lower tribunal and the higher tribunal itself.

I wanted to know why a transcript of the decision made on Dec. 3, 2021 by The Honourable Mrs Justice Heather Williams to strike out my 38 pages of “alleged whistleblowing” took so long to appear.

I initially brought my case in May 2020 after being fired on the 21st of that month.

I claimed my dismissal was automatically unfair because the bad whistleblowing laws in Britain are at least good enough to make it automatically unlawful to dismiss a whistleblower for blowing the whistle.

In my opinion, Bloomberg has pulled out all stops to improperly show my whistleblowing was not actually the reason for my dismissal.

In my recent batch of missives to the EAT, I was trying to give the judiciary a chance to make good on what I contend are its previous mistakes.

In that Nov. 8 communication, I included my 26 grounds why the EAT should have reviewed the rushed, faulty decision of December 2021. (A review of a decision is a less-formal form of an appeal.) Eady might not have seen that document, as it appears these examinations are undertaken in a siloed, ad hoc, selective fashion.

I had already pointed out that the decision transcript was not available to me until more than eight months after the decision.

In other words, to appeal the EAT’s decision to the Court of Appeal I should have appealed by Jan. 14, 2022, but I didn’t see the written transcript until October.

Appealing by the previous January would have required a time machine that I simply don’t own. No one does.

I lost the chance to make that legal move. Depriving me of my chance to appeal is clearly not justice.

It’s even worse. Bloomberg LP had at least some hand in the delay.

Indeed, Justice Eady, in a statement sent Friday Dec. 9, 2022, revealed that Bloomberg LP “completed the relevant form on 21 January 2022, which then enabled the preparation of a transcript to be progressed.”

So Bloomberg LP only “completed the relevant form” a full week after my deadline to appeal.

And don’t forget, those appealing to the Court of Appeal may have to pay the full cost of appeal, if he or she loses. Given Bloomberg LP’s appetite for expensive lawyers, that could run to hundreds of thousands of pounds. You don’t want to do it lightly, or with bad information. The only information I had was incomplete.

The court has already ordered me to pay Bloomberg £10,000 for its costs, which I just can’t bring myself to do. I was already intimidated, which I contend was what my former employer wanted.

The EAT’s repeated apologies for the delay don’t satisfy me because they don’t offer me a chance for justice.

Last week, the EAT made another offer, which I find humiliating.

“We are, indeed, very sorry for that delay and note that it was not a judicial one but an administrative one, complaint about which should be directed to the Operations Manager,” Justice Eady’s office said.

(To be continued)

In my email to EAT July 1, 2022

With respect, The Honourable Mrs Justice Heather Williams didn’t make sense when she handed down her reasons orally.

So how can a self litigant appeal without clearly knowing the reasons underpinning the decisions of both the lower court, which was less-than-fully informed by the EAT?

It’s nonsensical and is a miscarriage of justice.

 You say:

If it is your intention to appeal the reconsideration decision of the Employment Tribunal, it must be submitted to the Employment Appeal Tribunal within 42 days of the reconsideration decision sent to the parties.

Indeed, I sent my email asking for an extension within 42 days from the reconsideration decision. That is why I sent it then.

My overarching point is I can’t appeal if I don’t properly know what the reasons are why my whistleblowing was struck out.

Nor can Judge Klimov properly preside over my ordinary unfair dismissal case if he has not seen the written decision of the EAT explaining the whistleblowing decision.

That lack of rationale is down to you at the EAT. Why have you not sent the rationale? The Respondent has said it has paid for it.

The lower-court case should have been halted until the written rationale was provided by Heather Williams.

My 38 pages of whistleblowing, the dozens of detriments against me have not been examined properly by these courts because the courts are not following a logical process.

I repeat below the overriding objective of the employment law:

Overriding objective

  The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable Employment Tribunals to deal with cases fairly and justly. Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes, so far as practicable—

(a)ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;

(b)dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues;

(c)avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings;

(d)avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues; and

(e)saving expense.

A Tribunal shall seek to give effect to the overriding objective in interpreting, or exercising any power given to it by, these Rules. The parties and their representatives shall assist the Tribunal to further the overriding objective and in particular shall co-operate generally with each other and with the Tribunal.

Here is what’s really going on in my case:

A — The EAT/Tribunal has failed to place me on an equal footing with the Respondent.

B — The EAT/Tribunal has failed to deal with this case in a way that’s proportionate to its complexity.

C — The EAT/Tribunal, while offering some flexibility, hasn’t been flexible enough, given the illogical process and the complexity of the case (eg it’s the first time climate whistleblowing is even being tested).

D — The EAT has not avoided delay, which means the issues have not been dealt with properly, adding to my stress.

E — The illogical process has added to my expense – eg I’ve a cost order against me, and every day that’s accruing interest, adding to my financial and mental burden.

I’m still having to hire lawyers as the Respondent harasses and mocks me, I contend.

On May 19, the EAT said: “Please allow a minimum of a further 4-6 weeks before the EAT are in a position to issue the judgment. I apologise for the delay in this matter.”Yesterday, June 30, the six weeks was up. Do you need another extension? If so why?

The G7 is apparently now doing what I told the Respondent it should be focussing on. I was whistleblowing about it for years.

Hope: G7 Proposes to Form a Climate Club With Other Nations, Perhaps by the End of the Year (4)–Club membership is looking tricky, to say the least–CarrZee hopes behind the scenes collaboration is more productive than it looks on the surface (and it might be –see below) By …

Until now I’ve been defamed and demonized.
You don’t seem to really care about your role to protect whistleblowers / journalists trying to do the right thing.

Or send the Dec. 3 rationale and give me fair opportunity to appeal all decisions made since Dec. 3 [2021], once I’ve seen the rationale.

Every day the EAT delays, millions of people are suffering hardship and even dying because of climate change …and the respondent, many of its clients (who include the top 0.004% wealthiest people around the world), and polluters globally are making improper profits, I contend.

One comment

Leave a Reply