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 think possible.

May 1999: Join Neural Technologies Ltd as Manager of Scoring Solutions and soon discover that the company, its products and services have been misrepresented.

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 £103 damages.

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 GH Holcombe.

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 Neural Technologies.

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 confidentiality.

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 been fabricated.

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 Technologies.

February 6th 2002: Neural Technologies withdraw the counterclaim for fear of the consequences and refused to comply with the court order.

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 months later.

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 consent”.

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 completed.

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 Christmas.

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 proceed.

The Respondent’s solicitor had copies of personal communications between myself and my former legal advisor, proof that they are colluding.

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.
E-mail john_kear@kear.fsnet.co.uk