John Kear versus Neural Technologies
Chronology of Events.
This is a record of the full chronology of events that I
have experienced over the past four years. I have uncovered corruption and
collusion in the Employment Courts, the extent of which I did not previously
May 1999: Join Neural Technologies Ltd as Manager of Scoring
Solutions and soon discover that the company, its products and services have
June 1999: Neural Technologies request articles for
publication in the first company newsletter. I am asked to write the lead
article, a piece relating to the new regulations to be introduced as a result
of the Data Protection Act.
September 1999: Two individuals, Gerard Bolton and Cathie
Brown, rewrite my article without my knowledge or consent.
September 17th 1999: Industry wide publication of
newsletter. I complain. Instantly become the target of spiteful and malicious
behaviour. Working life becomes impossible.
October 4th 1999: I send copy of newsletter to
person who helped write the original.
th 1999: Simon Hancock is searching
through my e-mail server at 8.30am without my knowledge or permission. 8.45 am
I suffer a false accusation of breaching company confidentiality with no
opportunity for self defence and am marched out of the door.
Legal action commences.
October 25th 1999: Submit IT1 to ET at
Southampton for Breach of Contract.
November 5th 1999: Respondents submit IT3 to ET
claiming that the material I sent to a former colleague was highly confidential.
Respondents make a counter claim alleging that I made a reservation at a
conference and booked a hotel room without their consent, seeking recovery of
December 13th 1999: Internal discussion within
Neural Technologies when they realised that they had invited me to attend the
conference for which the hotel room had been booked.
February 22nd 2000: Respondents become aware that
I am still in possession of a copy of the newsletter and can prove that there
is nothing of a confidential nature contained within. All material is published
on the Respondent’s website. Respondent’s change their argument before the
court that the newsletter had not been published on October 4th such
that it remained a confidential document. Evidence before the court proves the
date of publication. The Chairman, Lewis Belcher explodes in fury at the
Respondents yet is rapidly subdued. My own representative physically restrains
me from giving further evidence and the Chairman then makes a finding against
the facts misrepresenting the evidence in the Extended Reasons.
Lewis Belcher allows the counter-claim to succeed, a claim
not within the jurisdiction of the court and which it is subsequently
discovered was supported by fabricated evidence, two separate and disparate e-mail
transcripts, joined in the middle with a handwritten section.
The Respondents are represented by the then CEO Nick
Ryman-Tubb, a Human Resources Executive called Kirsten Tait and a Barrister,
Charles Spencer Taylor.
I am represented by a legal practitioner by the name of Mr
April 17th 2000: I submit a Notice of Appeal to
the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
June 14th 2000: Preliminary Appeal at the EAT.
Case is handled swiftly and efficiently and allowed to proceed to Full Hearing.
July 5th 2000: My former legal advisor Mr
Holcombe telephones me asking for contact names within the EAT. I do not trust
Mr Holcombe and record the telephone call. Mr Holcombe describes a case
scenario which I later discovered exactly mirrored my circumstances. Mr
Holcombe knew the true reason for my dismissal many months before I did. After
this point in time the EAT become obstructive and abusive, causing delay and
confusion at every opportunity.
August 21st 2000: I secure a new salaried role
with a company called Equifax, the same day that Gerard Bolton from Neural
Technologies joins. He immediately sets about destroying my reputation by
telling everyone that I had been sacked on a charge of gross misconduct, had
taken Neural Technologies to court and lost. I suffered the untenable position
for one year before resigning on ill health.
September 27th 2000: Ian Gebbett tells me that
the reason I was dismissed was because of a disagreement over the newsletter
content and that individuals called Gerard Bolton and Cathie Brown had caused
trouble for me.
October 12th 2000: EAT finally serves notice on
October 19th 2000: Simon Hancock and Nick
Ryman-Tubb resign their directorships of Neural Technologies. Most of the staff
who had involvement in the frame up had already departed.
October 25th 2000: The barrister Charles Spencer
Taylor submits the Respondent’s Grounds of Appeal stating that the date of
publication was a matter of evidence before the court and that the newsletter
had not been published on the date in question. A blatant lie to the EAT. Over
a period of many months I petition the EAT for the release of the Chairman’s
notes from the first hearing, every reasonable request is denied. The notes
would prove that the barrister is deliberately misleading the court.
July 2001: I secure a dated copy of the newsletter in
question from an industry colleague. This proves that a non-confidential
document had been circulated on 17th September 1999, two weeks
before I sent a copy of it to a person who had helped me write the original. I
take the full file of evidence to Hampshire CID at Winchester and report the
crimes of perjury to DS Janice Adair and DS Kevin Perriment. The Police do not
act on this report.
August 8th 2001: Charles Spencer Taylor, presents
his skeleton argument to the EAT stating that the newsletter had not been
published and remained confidential.
He states “.. it is of course the fact that after
publication the Respondent desires the greatest possible distribution. It has
always been accepted that after
publication there could be no confidentiality.”
October 9th 2001: Charles Spencer Taylor
humiliates himself before His Honour Judge J R Reid QC having not checked the
contents of the bundle. Contained within the bundle was a dated copy of the
newsletter which I had obtained from an original recipient. Mr Taylor was
forced to admit before an open court that there had indeed been publication
though “he could not remember the exact date”. The newsletter had been
published and circulated over two weeks before I sent a copy to the former
colleague. Mr Taylor then makes the fantastic claim that the newsletter had
only gone out to 35 trusted customers all of which were bound by contracts of
confidentiality. The evidence proved that the newsletter was sent to names on a
‘prospect’ database, not existing customers. At that point in time Neural
Technologies had never had more than ten customers. A contract of
confidentiality cannot in any case cover non-confidential information. The case
was referred back to Southampton specifically to examine 35 contracts of
December 7th 2001: At an Interlocutory Hearing at
Southampton, the new Chairman, Mr Twiss refuses to order the release of 35
contracts, ordering only three. When I specified which three I required he
omitted the point from his order.
Mr Twiss did order the specific discovery of e-mails
relating to the counter claim. These would prove that the original evidence had
I return to Winchester Police station to pursue the case and
to determine what actions the Police have taken. After five months the Police
have taken no action whatsoever against the representatives of Neural
February 6th 2002: Neural Technologies withdraw
the counterclaim for fear of the consequences and refused to comply with the
Their solicitor Philip Broom again submits testimony to the
court, by written submission that the newsletter had not been published on the
date in question, despite the date being established at every previous hearing.
This was a blatant act of perjury.
The new Chairman, Donald Cowling delayed the case for most
of the day, wasted a lot of time persuading me to settle for less than I was
owed by contract, was generally abusive and subsequently ignored most of the
claims that I presented to the court, misrepresenting matters of fact and
evidence in his summing up.
Mr Cowling argued for the defence in their absence, yet
could not put together a coherent legal argument. He adjourned the court and
made a reserved decision.
A witness by the name of Ian Gebbett was kept separate from
me prior to the hearing, when called upon he claimed that he could not remember
the events of 1999 despite the fact that the details and transcription of our
previous telephone conversation were a matter of evidence before the court.
Mr Gebbett was made a director of Neural Technologies two
March 2002: The Extended Reasons are released which
completely ignore most of my claims before the court for costs, contractual
losses and damages. Mr Cowling records the Respondent’s fabrication of evidence
and repeated acts of perjury as a “possible misunderstanding”. Mr Cowling makes
reference to my performance in the job which is purely scandalous and has no
relevance to the case in hand. Mr Cowling awards £8000 which he claims is “by
March 11th 2002: I apply to the court for a
review of the case based on the fact that established legal principles have
been ignored. Mr Cowling declines my application for a review saying that it
has no reasonable prospect of success.
April 2002: I re-apply to the EAT for a full appeal. I
attach a sworn affidavit stating that the Employment Tribunal at Southampton is
not merely biased but criminally corrupt.
May 2002: I continue to pursue Hampshire CID for them to
arrest the persons concerned for their repeated and ongoing criminal acts. The
case has now been transferred to Southampton and is being looked into by DS
Phil Bateman and DC Paul Wright. They admit that the evidence proves that
crimes have been committed.
September 2002: It required the intervention of my MP for
the EAT to give me a date for a preliminary hearing. A member of staff at the
EAT by the name of Perry Moore was forced to give me a written apology following
his abusive and obstructive behaviour. At the hearing the Chairwoman made it
clear that she would not allow the case to proceed if I maintained my
allegation of bias against the court in Southampton and promptly struck out my
claim from the record. She did allow my claim to proceed for other contractual
losses and for damages.
Hampshire CID arrest Nick Ryman-Tubb.
October 2002: DC Paul Wright comes to visit me with the
specific intention of taking a statement from me. He arrives at my local Police
station where we have an interview room arranged carrying no papers. I have a
draft statement written and I am also equipped with a laptop and a printer
ready to amend the statement where necessary. DC Wright will not take the
statement from me but advises that I go back through it, indexing every item of
evidence (which the Police held at Southampton) and basically doing the
Police’s own work for them. The task became overly complicated and was not
December 2002 / January 2003: Telephone calls from Paul
Wright which bordered on the abusive, demanding I send the completed indexed
statement which I had immense difficulty in producing.
After many months of poring over the documentary evidence
which proves that Charles Spencer Taylor had misled the courts, the Bar Council
tell me that they are not proceeding with the investigation and wish me a Happy
March 2003: I discover from a third party that Hampshire CID
have dropped all charges related to this case and they had not the courtesy or
professionalism to inform me of this fact.
April 2003: I receive a telephone call from a female Police
officer in Southampton. She has found huge volumes of documentary evidence
stored away in a dusty cupboard. The evidence had my name and contact details on
it. She was confused and didn’t know what the evidence was hidden away for and
what she should do with it.
June 2nd 2003: The civil case returns to the EAT
in London. The evidence proves that the Respondents had repeatedly misled the
Employment Courts over a period of many years. The Chairman of the day saw
nothing wrong in the Respondents misleading the court or in fabricating
evidence for a counter claim. He was not bothered by the fact that the
Respondents had refused to comply with a direct court order for the release of
further evidence. The Chairman’s view was that this was within the Respondent’s
right to defend themselves. The Chairman of the day made a costs order against
me because I had made a complaint about the actions of the Respondent’s solicitor
in misleading the Courts. The complaint had been made directly to the solicitor
concerned and also to his seniors as a public interest disclosure since he
continues to break the law and presides over a miscarriage of justice. The
Chairman was blatantly biased and simply referred the case back to the original
court in Southampton despite the fact I made a specific claim for the case to
be dealt with in London.
He did not however have any choice but to allow my claims to
The Respondent’s solicitor had copies of personal
communications between myself and my former legal advisor, proof that they are
The Chairman knew facts about me that were not in the
evidence and had not been presented to the courts at any time, proof that there
was collusion between the court and the Respondents.
July 2003: I have still not received the written transcript
of the judgement from the EAT court which in any case will be a complete
fabrication and tissue of lies.
Return to contents list.
Return to narrative.
Copyright © 2003 - John Kear.
All Rights Reserved.