The disabled Claimant sent a formal complaint of judicial conduct (Under Tribunal Rule 2014)to the Employment Tribunals President (Judge Brian Doyle)He answers:
I am afraid that I must now draw a line under this correspondence.I intend you no discourtesy by so doing.Further correspondence from you on these same matters will be filed without acknowledgment or reply.
Read the full story http://poisonedjustice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/whistleblowing-claim-employment-judge.html
President Brian Doyle London Central Employment Tribunals Victory House 30-
34 Kingsway London WC2B 6EX
Mr M Longobardi v Aviation Fuel Services Ltd Case Number :3322804/2016 Re: Complaint – Judicial misconduct
Dear President Doyle
Further to your e-mail sent to me today. Having read your response to my complaint (and also the response from Regional Judge Byrne, who was not officially delegated to look into my complaint).
I followed yours and Regional Judge Byrne’s instruction to look at the website for Judicial Conduct and you will see yourself what the website says regarding such a complaint. “Complaints about Tribunal Judges must be made to the relevant Chamber President”.
You should know that the Ombudsman’s role is to conduct an investigation into the process by which the Tribunal Service handled the investigation into my complaint. Whether it was conducted fairly and appropriately in accordance with set procedures.
I have sent my complaint to you President Doyle, by email on 12 May 2017 and by letters dated 26 May 2017.
Please confirm to me, that you are rejecting the consideration of my complaint against members of Watford Employment Tribunal for judicial misconduct. Bearing in mind that Judge Vowles’ attitude towards me was racist, violating the human rights of a disabled person – the evidence of which is in my e-mail to you dated 12 May 2017.
I think you have possibly misunderstood the nature of my complaint, or you have chosen not to understand. I therefore am explaining again to you what my complaint is about.
My ex-employer is a huge group of oil companies and globally believes it has the power to control everything. I have brought several claims to the Employment Tribunal, including a Whistleblowing claim, where my ex employer has failed to to comply with Aviation Health and Safety obligations putting in danger millions of passengers’ lives flying from Heathrow Airport, (confirmed by Civil Aviation Authority). Employment Judge Vowles refused to discuss my Whistleblowing claim at the Preliminary Hearing on 29/09/16, therefore protecting my ex-employer and on 22/11/16, I received a letter from the ET stating that this particular claim was not included. I had to insist on a further Preliminary Hearing to give my evidence. I followed the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA) and I was finally given a date for another Preliminary Hearing on 14/03/17. The Employment Tribunal originally advised both parties on 09/02/17 that the Preliminary Hearing would take place in private (which would protect the Respondent’s reputation). I had to remind the ET that hearings of this context in the UK are to be public. At this point, the Employment Judge assisted the Respondent by ordering that they apply to strike out my Whistleblowing claim, in a letter to both parties, dated 22.02.17.
Judge Vowles wrote “ the Tribunal will also consider the Respondent’s application to strike out the claims on the grounds of unreasonable and vexatious conduct”. I have always shown due respect towards the Tribunal and the Respondent. In the words of Judge Vowles that my conduct was vexatious, this is rude and racist towards me, it is another humiliation against a disabled person, to strike me out at the Preliminary Hearing on 14/03/17. The Judge also ordered the ET office to send me an ‘urgent’ e-mail with this e-mail address email@example.com on 13/03/17 (also sent to the Respondent, the previous day to remind the Respondent, that he should strike out my claim). This amounts to conflict of interest, on behalf of my ex-employer. Thus pushing the Respondent to fabricate an application to strike out my Whistleblowing claim – this was unfortunately not possible to do, as it has already been investigated by the Civil Aviation Authority.
Employment Judge Hill from the ET, Watford refused this application on 08/03/17, the content of which was contained false statement that did not confirm with the criteria of claim. A letter followed dated 09/03/17 from ET Judge Vowles stating that ET Judge Hill’s letter sent to both parties, had been misquoted and the application to strike out had not been refused.
The Respondent has falsified claims in his application by stating that I have not complied with orders, I have clearly showed that I did comply with orders. The Respondent has also included in his application threatening letters, as presented at the Preliminary Hearing on 14/03/17, without providing a statement of truth following Civil Procedure rules. This has shamefully resulted in EJ Vowles accusing me directly of sending such letters to the Respondent, without evidence and this influenced his decision. At the Preliminary Hearing I pointed out many times that I made an application to strike out the Respondent for abuse of proceedings and vexatious conduct, especially producing false statement. I also asked Judge Vowles to record the facts, at the Preliminary Hearing on 14/03/17 but he refused. I advised the ET and the Respondent in my letter dated 28/10/16 that the Respondent had been making false statements and advised the other party to use a moderate tone and behaviour.
In addition, the Respondent has failed to comply with order and unless order date 5/12/16 and 11/01/17. The Respondent has defaulted but the Employment Tribunal has continued to ignore this violation, (how could it be possible that no-one in the ET team dealing with this case did not pick up on this?) assisting the Respondent and in the assumption that the Claimant is ignorant and taking advantage of his disability. I had no alternative but to apply for a statement of truth (Civil Procedure Rule 22.1) and ask the ET formally if the Respondent complied with order and unless order.
The Employment Tribunal has failed to give me a reply to this and I am still awaiting a response to my letter dated 12/04/17. Employment Judge Vowles has chosen to strike me out in whole for reasons of conflict of interest and falsifying the facts. I believe the reasons are based on the influence of my ex-employer (oil companies).
This is a disgraceful scenario and should not happen within the Justice system of this country. You have access to all correspondence via the HMCTS database server firstname.lastname@example.org and can verify that I am telling the Truth