It has been admitted that an error in Tribunal Procedures saw information about my Tribunal Case destroyed before it should have been, I want to know when it was destroyed.

John Rudkin made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Ministry of Justice.

Dear Ministry of Justice,

The information I provide below should be sufficient to show that an error in procedures has occurred at Manchester Tribunals. My actual request under the FOIA follows.

I took Blackpool Council to tribunal on September 13th 2012 (Case Mr J Rudkin vs Blackpool Council Case Number: 2408808/2011).

The progression of the case was delayed until 11th March 2013. The outcome fell in Blackpool Council's favour, however due to a number of things, the case was dismissed without blame or costs.

I requested a review of the findings (as I felt that certain things had been overlooked - in my favour), but the Judges were unwilling to return to the case notes.
I was granted an appeal against the findings, and on January 8th 2014 the case was heard at the London EAT. At that hearing I again asked for the records of the hearing to be taken into account, but this was refused. I also very specifically requested that the verbal dismissal of the Appeal be provided in documentary form as soon as possible. This was acknowledge, and would follow. It did not.
By the 15th of February 2014 I had still heard nothing, and so decided to request a Judicial Review as I was seeking to take the matters further. I received acknowledgement of receipt from the Manchester Employment tribunals, but nothing I can recall from the London Employment Appeal Tribunal.

To date I have not received any response to that request at all.

I decided (this whole thing took nearly 3 years to come to a head) to write to Manchester Tribunals and chase up what happened. I received the following reply on 19th November 2014.

(copied from letter)

"Mr J Rudkin
45 Folkestone Road Lytham St Annes Lancashire
FY8 3EH
HMCTS
Manchester Employment Tribunals Alexandra House
14-22 The Parsonage
Manchester
M3 2JA
T0161 833 6159
F0870 739 4433 [email address]
www.justice.gov.uk
Minicom VII
(helpline for the deaf and hard of hearing) 0845 7573722
Date: Wednesday, 19 November 2014
V Respondent Blackpool Council
Case Number: 2408808/2011
Claimant
Mr J Rudkin
Dear Mr Rudkin,
Thank you for your letter dated 12 November 2014, which has been treated as a complaint. It has been referred to me as a customer services officer.
I have looked back at that information we have on our electronic record and have noted the following sequence of events:
1. The file was closed on 16 April 2013 after our judgment was issued.
2. It came to my team on 28 August 2013 for the Appeal. The Destroy Date (‘DD’) should have been updated at this point. I am unsure whether this happened, but can confirm the computer record was not updated correctly.
3. The case was closed again on 26 February 2014.
4. It was referred to the Regional Employment Judge on 6 March 2014. 5. There is no return date for that referral.
6. There are no records of any correspondence between then and your email dated 1 November 2014 received after this date.
Without the hardcopy file, it is difficult to determine what exactly happened beyond this. Due to a clerical error, the Destroy Date was either not updated, or not noticed on the file when it was mistakenly destroyed in line with the original destroy date.
I apologise for this error and for any difficulties it causes you.
If you are not satisfied with my response then please write to the office manager, Dawn Flanagan, at this address stated above.
Yours faithfully
Eimear O’Toole-Allan
Mrs. E. O’Toole-Allan Customer Service Officer
27/11/14 14.00 tele

Following this letter I followed up with Dawn Flanagan, who as per the letter was most apologetic, but who could not help further.

I have written to the London Employment tribunal which has said that it cannot enter into any discussions as the "“The Appellant has supplied no explanation for the delay. The appeal was dismissed and matters at the EAT are at an end”

No one has acknowledged the steps I took after January 2014 at all. My concern is now simply that I do not have an explanation as to when the records were destroyed in error. My constant rejections, and the dismissal of any request to resist the judgements of the Tribunal or Appeal seem to be rather puzzling - and now somewhat suspect.

My requests are these:

1) "When were the records of the Tribunal (Mr J Rudkin vs Blackpool Council Case Number: 2408808/2011), and those of the related Appeal held on January 8th 2014 actually destroyed?"

2) "Were they all destroyed at the same time?"

3) "Precisely when were the Judges, Manchester Judge Cook (Sitting Alone) and Judge Sherratt (Sitting Alone), and the Appeal Judge, Judge Peter Clark (Sitting Alone) made aware that the records had been destroyed"?

Thank you,

Yours faithfully,

John Rudkin

Dear Ministry of Justice,

I received a letter in response to my specific questions on 6th January 2011, and for that, thank you for that.

From the response I note that the Employment Appeal Tribunal Files have not been destroyed after all, so I am now referring this matter back to the Counsel acting on my behalf, as well as to my MP to update him accordingly. I'd like to understand how my attempt to get justice as a first time, self-defending novice can have become so complex. I was advised that the Tribunal are 'flexible' and understanding where people defend themselves, but in my case all I seem to meet (in this case anyway) is reluctance to provide any sort of lenience in my favour. Let me say that I did appreciate the candid admission of fault by MET administration over the erroneous early destruction of my case files.

https://www.evernote.com/l/ABuQypiyB6VIR...

I stand by my assertion that I raised the issue of when the "final judgement in writing" would be available in the Appeal Hearing, and was advised accordingly. If my use of terminology or specialised language wasn't correct, I hope that such naivety by a me, a novice would be excused. I also stand by the fact that I requested a "judicial review" (as I understood to be the follow up to an appeal). I had no other information to reference.
You claim you did not receive this communication of 15th February 2014, but on further searching, I know it was received by Manchester Tribunals (I have a response email that matches), but I have no receipt from the EAT mailbox. Again, if having to monitor whether your email had in fact had receipt of my email could be my fault. I'd welcome clarification about whether it was received, or whether it was lost?

https://www.evernote.com/l/ABvoMnqlV1FOx...

https://www.evernote.com/l/ABtpJ3-cUMpE6...

In your letter dated January 8th 2015 you have sent me a copy of the order, which I see was dated 22nd January 2014. This is the first time I have seen the letter (orders?) included in the letter linked above. Do you have recorded proof of posting? If so, do you have any evidence that will enable me to track the letter.

There seem to have been a catalogue of errors to date.

1) There is no record of my request - the email seems never to have been received by the EAT. Do the ManchesterET and LondonEAT not confer at all?
2) You have sent me a copy of "orders" re: UKEATPA/0940/13/DM that I have never seen before.
3) Manchester ET have destroyed all relevant paperwork, and admitted it was an error.

I will respond according in a separate email to the relevant customer Service Officer named.

Yours faithfully,

John Rudkin

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Thank you for the letter that was sent from the Employment Appeal Tribunal on January 12th 2015. It states clearly

1) "We are unable to usefully add to our letter of 8 January 2015"

2) You are reminded that this matter at the Employment Appeal Tribunal is now at an end"

3) We cannot comment on what may or may not have happened administrative at the Employment Tribunal"

However - from previous information/communications, I have an apology for the fact (established) that my files having been destroyed in error and early. Why can you not comment on this?

You have not destroyed my EAT records from January 2014 however.

The Registrar states that I gave no GOOD reasons for delays in communicating with you about never receiving any follow-up to my hearing, however I have sent proof that I did TRY to communicate with you in February 2014, and that it has been confirmed that the email was received by Manchester Tribunals (they were co-contacted). You state that you cannot find a record of your receiving the email sent at the same time? I reiterate that I asked, in that email, for a Judicial Review of my case. It is also noteworthy that you sent me a letter (a copy) of a communication to me that by mail that I have never received.

I will await further communication (hopefully by the 27th of January, and posted here), but in light of the information I do have I will regrettably have to submit another request under FOIA taking this into account.

Yours faithfully,

John Rudkin

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Justice's handling of my FOI request 'It has been admitted that an error in Tribunal Procedures saw information about my Tribunal Case destroyed before it should have been, I want to know when it was destroyed.'.

I am most surprised that a response has not been offered here by the Ministry of Justice itself. I have clarified my request, but seem to have met a wall of silence - and being contrary and in danger of being pedantic. All I am looking for is what I would have received had the Appeal actually found the email that WAS RECEIVED BY MANCHESTER TRIBUNALS, but that the EAT claims not to have received. I have also requested postal evidence of actual send of receipt of the letter that the EAT claims it sent (judgement), that I have no record of receiving. Surely the Tribunals DO RECORD THE SENDING OF IMPORTANT COMMUNICATIONS? If not, please look at your own procedures as part of this internal review request. In stating this, in my original claim against Blackpool Council it WAS PROVED AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT BLACKPOOL COUNCIL DID NOT FOLLOW ITS OWN PROCEDURES (or the other agreed procedures) and evidence was offered that would have proved the deliberate deception of the Judge, but rejected. I was mortified that a judgement was made in their favour despite this.

There seem to have been a trail of 'unfortunate errors' made.

Where is justice?

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...

Yours faithfully,

John Rudkin

Further information can be read at: https://www.evernote.com/l/ABsJWswoRV1CD...

Dear Ministry of Justice,
Please see the response received below:

From: John Rudkin [email address]
Subject: Re: PA/0940/13/DM - Mr J A Rudkin v Blackpool Council
Date: 9 February 2015 17:26
To: LONDONEAT [email address]
Bcc: John Rudkin [email address]
Dear Ms. Johnson,
Many thanks for your reply to my email, which you are treating as a second stage complaint.
Please note that I refer directly to your email below:
1) "I regard those records as sufficient indication that it was sent." If I may respectfully note here that my complaint is that I did not receive the communication/judgement - thereby making it impossible for me to have been able to follow it up. I cannot prove it did not arrive, but I think my comments may help ascertain that to be true. To date I have responded to all similar judgements and notices.
"My email of 15th of February 2014 was an attempt to chase up on the outcome of my EAT - as nothing had been received."
"You suggest that the EAT keeps a record of outgoing post.". I do not recall suggesting retention of outgoing post, but I certainly think it would make sense to have a record of postage, or better still, communications being signed for if the communication is an important one. In this case it was a communication that was specifically requested, and one which if not received could limit the "recipients" rights as seems to have happened here.
2) "I do not accept that your email of 15 February 2014 is chasing up the outcome from the EAT. It is addressed to both Manchester ET and EAT; it does not bear the EAT’s reference number; and it does not say that you have not received any written record of the outcome of the appeal. It seems to be asking for advice as to how to pursue the matter further."
As I have already pointed out, this is all new to me. It looks as though there is no acceptance that I have told the truth, and I am not happy about it. Luckily I do not, or have never needed to access the services of Tribunals before, although I was advised that there is an awareness among Judges and the Tribunals that 'novice' self-supported applicants are given some lea-way in interpretation and the ways of the law. You seem to be calling me a liar? I am really sorry that you do not accept the reasoning I gave for my email of February 15th 2014. If I was expecting any sort of advice I am sure you would have informed me according that you could not offer this.......but I did not even receive an acknowledgement. I have now had two apologies for that, but they do not help.
3) "As Mrs Muir said in her email, your recent request for a transcript was put before Judge Clark, who refused it. I cannot deal with a complaint about that refusal by way of an administrative complaint." Thank you for clarifying this point. Again, as a novice, I did not know this.
4) "I accept that the EAT should have replied to your email of 15 February 2014, and I add my apology that we did not to Mrs Muir’s, but as Mrs Muir said, it is not clear in that email what you wanted the EAT to do. The EAT’s reply would have been to say that we could not advise you how to proceed and that any further challenge would have to be to the Court of Appeal." I want to point out once again, in failing to reply to my
email of February 15th 2014 (which has received an apology), and in failing to ensure that
email of February 15th 2014 (which has received an apology), and in failing to ensure that the requested judgement was actually received at my home address the EAT (which you do not do as a matter of importance) has compounded the problem. You must understand the position this left me in. How much chasing of the EAT is a member of the public expected to do?
5) "Your numbered complaints 1 to 3 seem to relate entirely to the Employment Tribunal. This is not something I can deal with and you should address these matters to the Employment Tribunal. I have dealt with your complaint number 4 above." You are correct that points 1 to 3 relate to the Employment tribunal. These points were all made in my Appeal, but the Judge would not consider them. This might be why I was keen to see the complete judgement - which again, as evidenced from Judgements I received from Manchester Tribunals, contained details and reason why certain decisions were made. I don't recall asking for "transcripts" until this was mentioned by the EAT when I contacted you later in 2014.
6) "I am sorry that you remain dissatisfied with the service you have received from the EAT. Except that we did not reply to your email of 15 February 2014, I do not accept that there has been any failure by the EAT." Your comment is only the second time that I can recall having a formal apology from an organisation when the claim is that was done wrong. The last time this happened was when the internal appeal process offered my apologies for the way I was treated - and Blackpool Council then went on to claim that they had done nothing wrong!
I am not happy with the response Ms. Johnson.
You may wish to pass this communication on to Communications & Customer Service Team. I will also copy it in writing as advised.
Yours sincerely,
Mr John Rudkin
45, Folkestone Road Lytham St Annes Lancashire
FY8 3EH
On 9 Feb 2015, at 16:43, LONDONEAT <[email address]> wrote: Dear Mr Rudkin
Thank you for your email of 29 January 2015, which I shall treat as a second stage complaint. I am therefore reviewing Mrs Muir’s handling of your complaint.
You suggest that the EAT keeps a record of outgoing post. I do not consider it practical for the EAT’s post room to log the address of every item of outgoing post. As Mrs Muir wrote in her email of 28 January 2015, we have the file copy of the covering letter sent with the order seal-dated 22 January 2014. Although she did not say so, there is also a corresponding entry on our case management system which records that the order was sealed and sent to parties on that date. I regard those records as sufficient indication that it was sent.
The court log records that a transcript was not ordered or requested at the hearing.
The court log records that a transcript was not ordered or requested at the hearing. As Mrs Muir wrote, you were represented at the hearing by pro bono counsel, who would have been able to advise you what you should do if you wanted to pursue the matter further.
You did not pursue the fact that you had not received any written record of the outcome of your appeal until almost ten months after the hearing.
I do not accept that your email of 15 February 2014 is chasing up the outcome from the EAT. It is addressed to both Manchester ET and EAT; it does not bear the EAT’s reference number; and it does not say that you have not received any written record of the outcome of the appeal. It seems to be asking for advice as to how to pursue the matter further.
As Mrs Muir said in her email, your recent request for a transcript was put before Judge Clark, who refused it. I cannot deal with a complaint about that refusal by way of an administrative complaint.
As Mrs Muir also wrote, as you did not appeal the decision from the hearing on 08 January 2014 to the Court of Appeal (and would now be considerably out of time to do so), the transcript of the judgment is of academic interest only. If you had appealed the decision, then the Court of Appeal would have asked the EAT to transcribe the judgment, and we would have done so.
As Mrs Muir pointed out, the EAT’s procedures are set out in its Practice Direction, and a copy was sent to you when you lodged your appeal, with a covering letter which emphasised its importance.
Your numbered complaints 1 to 3 seem to relate entirely to the Employment Tribunal. This is not something I can deal with and you should address these matters to the Employment Tribunal. I have dealt with your complaint number 4 above.
I accept that the EAT should have replied to your email of 15 February 2014, and I add my apology that we did not to Mrs Muir’s, but as Mrs Muir said, it is not clear in that email what you wanted the EAT to do. The EAT’s reply would have been to say that we could not advise you how to proceed and that any further challenge would have to be to the Court of Appeal.
I am sorry that you remain dissatisfied with the service you have received from the EAT. Except that we did not reply to your email of 15 February 2014, I do not accept that there has been any failure by the EAT.
If you are not satisfied with my response to your complaint then you may appeal in writing to:
Communications & Customer Service Team HMCTS
1.10, 1st Floor
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
SW1H 9AJ
Julia Johnson
Deputy Registrar Employment Appeal Tribunal
From: John Rudkin [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 29 January 2015 11:54
To: EATAssociates
Subject: Re: PA/0940/13/DM - Mr J A Rudkin v Blackpool Council
Dear Ms. Muir,
Thank you for your response. I appreciate the fact that you have accepted my communication as a complaint because that is what was intended - although I may not have followed the exact procedures, nor used wording that might be used through a professionally supported route. My naivety (admitted) comes from the fact that this incident, arising as it did from my ‘unfair dismissal’ claim, through Appeal, is a first. I decided to run my own representation on my reference to information generally available from the various Government supported sites. I am afraid throughout, I feel as though I have not been given the support or patience promised.
Thank you for sending me the reference link to the complaints procedures.
Do procedures actually NEED to be adhered to? (rhetorical question)
Your reference is useful - as was emphasised by the Judge in my first Tribunal hearing, the importance of adhering to the agree procedures. I could quote you verbatim from the judgement in the judgement I requested. Unfortunately, as the Judge in my second Tribunal hearing said,
Judge Cook: Discussion/received. "I pointed out to the respondent (Blackpool Council) that they would have difficulty in this case in terms of credibility as they have failed to follow their own procedure and to have a recording of the Hearing" (They had no notes or minutes for any meeting)
Judge Sherratt Judgement 8. “The process was not helped by the lack of any Council minutes which was in breach of the Council’s own procedure for required notes to be taken and produced”
Interesting, my evidence offered at ET was in audio format, and it can prove complicit lies, attempts to bully, ageism and a damning admission by my Manager to change his story if I took my complaints to a third party. Judge Cook refused to admit the evidence on the basis that in a meeting with only myself and my Manager (2) present, I did not declare it, even though it had been done while I was sick following an operation.
It strikes me that while I followed procedures throughout, the importance of doing so only seems to be of importance to some decisions, because in the end Blackpool Council’s
failures did not affect whether my case was won. I now see procedures as less important
failures did not affect whether my case was won. I now see procedures as less important thanks to this case.
The Judgement
I did request a copy of the judgement at the end of the EAT. The fact that I never received a copy until I was sent it as part of my chase up in 2014 is not just poor, it shows that the systems at the EAT need to be changed. If neither the issuing and posting, nor the delivery of important paperwork is acknowledged (which I had assumed you would show me evidence of) how can you be sure you have covered your own obligations?
My email of 15th of February 2014 was an attempt to chase up on the outcome of my EAT - as nothing had been received.
I have a number of refusals following my request for the transcript (transcript/judgement/record of the appeal hearing - all blend together). What I expected from the Appeal Tribunal was what I automatically received from Manchester Tribunals (I did have to ask for further information following the final judgement as initially the judgement was a single line in length without any detail). I do not appreciate being told that I had provided no good reason why the delay in requesting the judgement in hard copy format..... because I have done. Again, no, I never received it. I am not trying to drag this out un-necessarily.
You state "As you were in court when Judge Clark delivered his judgment, you were aware of its content.” Yes, I was there, but no, other than the judgement itself, I had no idea of what it might contain. The judgements from Manchester Tribunals were much more thorough - almost ‘transcripts” in fact, although clearly not verbatim. It did, however set out a number of things that helped me understand why the judgement was as it was - and to be able to see in formal terms set out WHY, whether I liked it or not. That was what I expected.
Apologies
No, I had no response to the email (previously) - not even for further information. I accept the apology, but it joins others, from both the Manchester Tribunals, including the one relating to the erroneous destruction of my case files, and added to the multitude of errors (including one from my Employer at their appeal) about how I was treated. None seem to have helped me. My errors are simply in accepting the legal system would fairly accept that procedures and evidence need to be taken seriously, and that the system would try to accommodate my desire to keep cost to the public purse to a minimum.
Apologies really do not help - but thank you anyway.
Pro-Bono
My contact with the pro-bono service was last-minute and while appreciated, amounted to 20 minutes discussion on the day of the appeal, and accompaniment in the actual hearing. That was me being naive again? I would have contacted the service, but as I never had follow up and a judgement formally, it fell by the wayside.
Thank you for taking a thorough look at my communication.
Following the “I want to complain - What do I do?” EX343 My complaints are as follows:
1) That in disallowing the audio content I offered to present at my initial hearing in 2012, and then emphasising the degree of importance to be placed on procedures (in this case Blackpool Council’s representatives knowingly dismissed the correct procedure of making notes and agreeing outcomes fro meetings).
Lack of continuity between cases Blackpool Council were allowed to ignore specific orders made in the initial hearing. I adhered to these orders which compromised my position providing the respondent with information which was not reciprocated.
That in the final judgement 07/05/2013 Judge Sherratt Page 8 point 35: “ I am on balance satisfied it is more likely than not that the respondent made the same information available to all those holding H4 roles, including the claimant i.e.......” The only proof is in the audio recordings. I was deliberately told something different - I said at the time to appease me. I also have evidence of a threat made to me not to disclose that offer in discussions with my professional association.
2) That my evidence and reporting of whistle-blowing about a fraud impacted the decision to make me redundant. This is now the subject of an investigation by Auditors from London (ERDF). That information I brought up regarding the person who actually was awarded the role I was offered was ignored. He never actually took up the role and never intended to, leaving the Council to take up a Directorship with my IT Manager’s then formed external company.
3) That the destruction of files, albeit erroneously, by the Tribunals has limited my access to evidence and my go some way to explaining why I have had difficulty in getting answer from the initial Judgements.
4) The confusion over whether communications were received or sent at various points, including the failure of the Appeal Tribunal to ensure I, as the appellant in the case, and with stated requirements to receive and follow up. I think it an oversight that I cannot emphasis more pointedly that postal mailings need to be recorded, or at least acknowledged as received. Several replies based on “has not given good reasons” could be turned around in this case. The Appeal Tribunal has not given a good reason why it does not ENSURE ‘important documents’ are received”.
I have no complaint about the expedience or manner your reply, however I do have a complaint or two about the service I have received, and as I set out above. I am not happy about that service, or any reasons for it contained in your response.
In consideration of loss made as a result of the my complaints, I have been unable to gain appropriate employment in the area since 2011. This, despite a career without having a break in my employment, and at a number of senior roles. I am currently self-employed as a matter of necessity, rather than becoming a burden on the state.
Please can you pass this to a the relevant EAT Registrar/Senior Manager.
I am keeping my MP aware of the progress of my issue/s here and I have had to bring a
I am keeping my MP aware of the progress of my issue/s here and I have had to bring a
formal complaint to Police attention due to connected issues. You may understand from this that access to transcripts etc are quite important.
Yours sincerely,
John Rudkin
45, Folkestone Road Lytham St Annes Lancashire
FY8 3EH
On 28 Jan 2015, at 16:12, EATAssociates <[email address]> wrote: Dear Mr Rudkin
Your email of 09 January 2015 has been brought to my attention. Although you have addressed it to Angela Shannon at the Manchester Employment Tribunal, it deals mostly with issues relating to the EAT, and I have decided to treat it as a first stage complaint under the HMCTS complaints procedure, a copy of which may be found here.
The EAT’s order seal-dated 22 January 2014 was sent to you (and the respondent) by first class post on that date. First class post is our normal mode of communication with parties, and we do not have any record of posting other than the existence of a file copy of the covering letter. I am unable to offer any explanation as to why you might not have received it.
Your email of 15 February 2014 was received at the EAT, but it did not bear the EAT reference of your appeal and unfortunately it was not linked to your file.
I apologise that we did not respond to that email, however it is not clear what you were asking the EAT to do, other than to give you advice. We should have replied that the EAT could not advise you how to proceed, and that any challenge to the order of 22 January 2014 would have to be by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal in the terms of the last paragraph of that order.
The procedure for appeals from EAT decisions is set out at paragraph 25 of the EAT Practice Direction. A copy of the Practice Direction would have been sent to you with the EAT’s letter dated 20 June 2013. Referring to the Practice Direction, that letter said: “This is an important document which you should take time to read and retain for reference for the duration of any proceedings at this Tribunal.”.
I see that at the hearing before His Honour Judge Peter Clark on 08 January 2014 you had the benefit of pro bono advice and representation from Ms Wilkinson of counsel. After the judge gave judgment, she would have been able to advise you about the options available to you if you wished to pursue the matter further.
You say that you requested a “judicial review”. The only mention of a “judicial review” in your email of 15 February 2014 was: “I am seeking a judicial review, if possible.”. I do not consider that to be a request to the EAT to review its decision. A Judicial Review (in its proper sense) is not available as a route to appeal a decision of the EAT.
The destruction of your Employment Tribunal (ET) file is a matter for the ET, however I would like to make it clear that it did not affect your appeal to the EAT in any way. The EAT holds a separate file, which has not been destroyed.
Your request for a transcript of the judgment from the hearing on 08 January 2014 has been put before Judge Clark, and refused (the EAT’s letter dated 08 January 2014 refers). If, as I understand, you have not appealed the EAT’s decision to the Court of Appeal, then the production of a transcript seems to be of academic interest only. As you were in court when Judge Clark delivered his judgment, you were aware of its content.
As I said at the beginning of this email, I have treated you email of 09 January 2015 as a formal complaint. If you are not satisfied with my response, then you may write to the EAT Deputy Registrar by replying to this email. The Deputy Registrar will review my handling of your complaint.
Martine Muir
Employment Appeal Tribunal Delivery Manager
Tel: 0207 273 1032
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.


Yours faithfully,

John Rudkin

Bingham, Linda,

1 Attachment

Good Afternoon

 

Please find attached the response to your request for an Internal Review.

 

Kind regards  

 

Linda Bingham l HM Courts & Tribunals Service l Directorate Support  

Strategy and Change Directorate 

2nd Floor Training Admin Room, Nottingham Magistrates Court, Carrington
Street Nottingham NG2 1EE

Phone     0115 955 8136

Mobile     07917 594 660

E mail [email address]

 

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.