I had a tribunal which was not successful, appealed to E.A.T, lost that although subjective comments were made in the reply. In the tribunal itself and before the judge made a number of comments. The Scott schedule which the judge put in place was listed and the cut off was 31 march 2011. On the last day of the hearing a policy was shown in the tribunal which showed that my employer did not follow their own rules! In the tribunal itself where a person had tried to bring items into a prison by using their authority, however they could not do that and were told that, basically abusing their position. The judge made comments that, when they were a solicitor they used to try and take things into prison along the same lines as the senior manager. I suffer from mental health problems and I was struggling at some points in the tribunal, I told the judge about my problems, only to be told, " Well you are not ill now, I raised both of these at the appeal to E.A.T, who basically glossed over the comments. My case w as for victimisation and constructive dismissal, the judge said I would receive an answer to the case 4 weeks later, 12 weeks later he gave his judgement. It appeared that after the 31 march, the tribunal had looked at other information and cherry picked some which supported the respondent. There was lots of evidence which supported me which showed that, a lot of what the judge had supported for the respondent was not true, however he left all of my information out of the tribunal. Before the tribunal took place I asked for a number of things to be included in the Scott schedule, but the judge did not respond. About 5 weeks before the tribunal the respondent sent a document to the tribunal and me, without asking for the agreed bundle to be altered. When I tried to raise something to be included in the bundle, the judge said I had to put it into a proper format. I did this and sent it to the tribunal which included some things raised under the witness statements for the respondent. I received a letter back saying I should have raised things earlier, but I could not do this, as the witness statements had been delayed for a long period of time. I also asked for a number of the respondents witnesses to be ordered to attend the hearing, as some of the information supported me, in relation to the case. The judge said I could not ask for info now and he would not order the respondents to attend and I was to raise it all in the tribunal when it sat. I was told you could have things included in the bundle, even though we agreed the bundle upto 7 days before the trial, the other side just added stuff without permission, yet when I tried, I could not do so. One of the witnesses had made a statement which said they signed off a staff report for me and in the bundle was a copy of the report written by my line manager and supported by this witness, showing victimisation. I tried to question this as they had implicated themselves in their statement and the report, I tried to explore this important issue and the judge just put me down and said I could not raise it now, as it was not in the Scott schedule. As I said the court introduced items after 31 march 2011 in the judgement, however as it was after the cut off date and the tribunal had gone away to deliberate, I was unable to question both the documents they used and respondents who I tried to get ordered to attend the tribunal who it related too. I raised all this under appeal to review, but the judge said in the reply that I was just trying to raise the same issues again and would not review his decision. It felt like the tribunal was geared towards supporting the respondent. The registrar put in subjective comments, as well as the tribunal, it was like they were trying to make excuses for the judge in relation to his outspoken comment about bringing items into prison and said nothing at all about his questioning of me in a bitter way about my illnesses.
What I need is a reference to case's, which allow me to come up with a skeleton argument for what the tribunal did, i.e look at things outside of the scope of the Scott schedule, also within the judgement that the tribunal issued.
I think the judge must have made the decisions by himself without the 2 others having much of a say, 3 months down the line...
If you can find someone, please do.
I am raising the issue of a fair hearing by my submission here I.e that the judge put in the final judgement evidence outside a Scott schedule which influenced the overall decision without me being able to cross examine it.
Please return funds