IN THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Case Number:
MR JOHN KEAR Applicant
ATTACHED: SWORN BUNDLE OF EVIDENCE ALLEGING
INCLUDED: BUNDLE OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN ROWLAND KEAR
Employment Tribunal at Southampton has shown consistent bias throughout
the whole of my case that is of such an extreme degree that I reasonably
consider the court to be criminally corrupt. The court steadfastly refuses
to administer justice and continuously misrepresents facts of evidence.
February 22nd 2000 the then Chairman, Mr Belcher, made a
finding against the available evidence and subsequently misrepresented
matters of fact and evidence in the Extended Reasons. I refer to pages 2-6
of the Sworn Bundle where Mr Belcher concedes that the newsletter was
confidential, yet the Respondents later claim (Page 8 and 19) that there
can be no confidentiality after publication. The testimony of my former
advisor (page 10) confirms that this had been revealed to the court.
a successful, albeit delayed appeal, the case was referred back to
Southampton for the re-examination of evidence.
- At a
Directions Hearing on December 9th 2001, the Respondent’s
solicitor Mr Phillip Broom was openly colluding with the Chairman, Mr
Twiss, before I was allowed to even enter the court.
the fact that the EAT had specifically referred the case back to
Southampton to examine 35 contracts of confidentiality, Mr Twiss refused
to order the release of 35 contracts of confidentiality stating that 3
would be sufficient to establish a point in law and that the court did not
want to be burdened with paperwork. This is an error in law though he
would not be moved. When I specified which 3 contracts I would like to
see, in the full knowledge that the Respondents would not be able to
produce these, he omitted the point from his order.
Twiss ordered the specific discovery of two e-mail conversations which
were required as evidence. The Respondents have refused to release them
and the court refuses to enforce the order.
Witness Order states that the Respondents were not informed that the order
had been made yet the order was sent care of the Respondents and there was
subsequent correspondence between the new CEO of Neural Technologies and
the Tribunal as they decided whether to allow the witness’s attendance.
Twiss allowed me to amend my originating application to include a claim
for unfair dismissal, on the basis that new evidence had since come to
light evidence, which explained the true reason for my dismissal. Mr Twiss
was unaware at this point of the wealth of evidence that I could produce
to support my claim.
- On the
day of the final hearing, February 6th 2002, the hearing was
scheduled for 9:45am yet I was not allowed to enter the court until after
11:30am. The new chairman, Mr Cowling, apologised for the delay and then
raised a preliminary point, of which I was previously unaware, disallowing
my amended claim for unfair dismissal. He proceeded to waste time on this
issue before adjourning the court for lunch.
court had ordered that all statements and evidence be submitted to the
court at least 14 days prior to the hearing, yet the Chairman Mr Cowling
was raising a preliminary point that I had no advance notification of, and
therefore no chance to prepare a reasoned legal argument.
point 4 of the Extended Reasons Mr Cowling states that the court must
consider “the injustice and hardship of refusing it [the amended
application]”. The Respondents misrepresented the true reason why I was
dismissed and I only discovered the facts, over a year later, while the
original claim was being processed by the Appeal Tribunal. The actions of
the Respondents have ruined my reputation, livelihood and health. If the
court was truly committed to resolving the injustice and the resultant
hardship caused, then they would have allowed the claim to proceed.
point 5 of the Extended Reasons Mr Cowling states that the facts were
“within the knowledge of the applicant at the time of the Originating
Application”. The evidence conclusively proves this not to be the case and
Mr Cowling has misrepresented the facts.
point 9 Mr Cowling states “the prejudice to the Respondent if we were to
allow the amendment outweighs the prejudice to the applicant in refusing
it”. Mr Cowling states that the delay in the case is an important
consideration. I have proven myself to be the innocent party, the delay
evident in this case has therefore been a prejudice to me alone. I have
been the victim of false accusations supported by fabricated evidence and
perjury. Where Mr Cowling claims that delay prejudices recollection, this
point is wholly immaterial because the facts of the matter are now backed
up by documented evidence.
pointed out to Mr Cowling that the Tribunals have an ‘overriding
objective’ to ensure fairness and an equal standing between the parties,
especially where one party is unrepresented. He ignored this point, I
contend that the refusal to allow the new claim had been predetermined
when the court realised how much of it could be proven. Mr Twiss had
previously allowed the claim to proceed.
from lunch, Mr Cowling’s opening statement was that he could not see why I
was proceeding with this case because the Respondents had made an offer of
settlement of £8000. He considered this to be a very generous offer. This
amount is much less than the Respondents owe me by contract and which was
due two and a half years ago, does not include an interest element, covers
no damages, and the Respondents were still not admitting liability. He
urged me to consider the settlement, threatened me with a potential costs
order if I were to proceed with my claim and adjourned the court again for
me to reconsider, wasting even more time.
- By the
time Mr Cowling reconvened the court I was given one hour to present my
evidence, a huge volume of evidence gathered over a two year period, and
which justified more time. During the time I was allowed to present, Mr
Cowling and his two colleagues kept interrupting the flow and making
aggressive comments. When I presented the dated newsletter which proved
that the Respondent’s argument was a blatant lie, Mr Cowling shouted at me
“Where did you get this?” I contend that he was upset and uncomfortable
because I used the barrister’s own argument to prove that the court had
previously erred in law, and had attempted to cover up the fact. There
can be no confidentiality after publication.
two panel members, Mrs Saunders and Mrs Angus were hostile in the extreme.
One kept staring, shaking her head as I spoke and occasionally making
tutting noises. The other was busily rifling through the evidence trying to
find areas where I could be caught out. The panel were doing the job of
the Respondent’s defence, this is not the purpose of an independent and
unbiased Tribunal panel.
- On the
matter of the confidentiality of the document which I passed to a
colleague, Mr Cowling would not concede that there was no confidentiality
in the material during the course of the hearing, continually criticising
me that I had no right to send it, despite the fact that it has been a
matter of evidence before the courts that I had the full permission of my
Cowling then argued that companies had the right to hire and fire at will.
I argued that this was not the case for the following reasons:
had a very specific and detailed contract of employment which specified
the procedure by which the contract might be terminated. I referred to
the case of Polkey and said that dismissal without consultation and
following proper procedure was unfair.
I had been falsely accused of gross misconduct and that the manner in
which I was dismissed was damaging in the extreme to my reputation and
ability to earn, thereby entitling me to make a claim for stigma damages.
his statement under oath, delivered in February 2000, the then CEO of
Neural Technologies places great emphasis on the matter of
confidentiality in this particular industry, due to the sensitive nature
of the information that is often handled. There can therefore be no
greater stigma than being accused of breaching confidentiality. The
Chairman wilfully refused to see this point.
true reason for my dismissal came out over a year after my dismissal and
it was that I was harassed out of the job by jealous and inadequate
people who resented my position.
light of my reasoned arguments, the Chairman asked my witness how many
employees were in Neural Technologies, the answer as I recall was in the
region of 40. I then had to point out to the Chairman that at the time of
my dismissal there were 56 employees. 50 is the critical number above
which companies are legally bound to follow detailed disciplinary
procedures, failure to do so results in potentially unfair dismissal. I
contend that the Chairman was searching for a way out of the Polkey
argument, and this would have been his only opportunity. Unable to
produce any reasoned argument and in desperation, the Chairman adjourned
the court and made a reserved decision.
Tribunal has deliberately and blatantly refused to administer the law, the
Tribunal panel themselves arguing for the defence. This is a biased court.
point 26 of his Extended Reasons, Mr Cowling records that “a contract of
employment can be lawfully terminated by the giving of notice” and with
reference to damages, “By consent, this is £8000”. I was not given notice
but summarily dismissed on false charges, refused an investigation or
appeal, and have had to fight for two and a half years to clear my name.
The sum paid is actually less than I was owed, by contract, at the time of
dismissal and includes no interest element. There are outstanding sums due
for pension contributions, relocation expenses plus other benefits. The
court has simply obediently followed the instructions of the Respondent’s
solicitors with no regard for reasoned legal arguments. The statement also
implies that I agreed to this sum. Mr Cowling is misrepresenting fact.
- I have
documented evidence that the Respondents have been motivated by malice
throughout this case and have caused deliberate harm and damage to me on
numerous occasions. The Respondents have presented multiple defamatory
statements about me to the courts, have published inflammatory material on
their website, have threatened me and I can now also prove that they have
pursued me outside of the courts. I entered multiple claims for aggravated
damages to the court but Mr Cowling makes no record of this. He is again
I can prove that the Respondents have behaved in a vexatious, frivolous
and unreasonable manner throughout this case, I made an application to the
court for a small sum to cover my costs. Mr Cowling makes no record of
this. He is again misrepresenting fact.
court records that Simon Hancock found a copy of the e-mail on the 13th
October. The evidence proves this to be incorrect, Mr Cowling is again
deliberately misrepresenting fact.
court records that the company had become dissatisfied with my performance
and that several complaints had been received, yet they refuse to qualify
this argument and it runs counter to the evidence. The court makes
absolutely no effort to determine the truth in this matter, which in
itself is a failure to administer justice.
extensive bundle of evidence categorically proves that nothing the
Respondents presented to the court is true, at either of the Southampton
hearings or at the EAT hearing.
- It was
established at the EAT in October 2001 that the newsletter at the centre
of the argument had been published yet the Respondents again submitted the
argument, against all the evidence that the newsletter had not been
published. This was an act of blatant perjury, designed to pervert justice
and to cause annoyance, which the Chairman records as “a possible
consistent objectives throughout this case have been:
clear my name.
determine the truth which, even with the detailed file of evidence, the
Respondents will not admit.
receive an apology.
see justice served.
secure compensation, commensurate with the damage that the Respondents
have caused, which will enable me to retrain and develop an alternative
career since my reputation in this industry, through no fault of my own,
has now been destroyed.
SWORN BY THE ABOVE
NAMED JOHN ROWLAND KEAR SIGNED: …………………………
AT 3 VICTORIA SQUARE, ABERDARE
BEFORE GERALD F. CARTER SIGNED: …………………………
ON THIS DAY, DATE: