Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

[LondonArea]

I am sure that you have all heard tales of 'biased' judges
My tale is slightly different.
I was sacked from my job, very harshly I think most people would agree
I therefore took my employer to their local ET claiming breach of contract + 1 week's pay ( £180)
My employer aided by employment partner from v.large local firm counterclaimed for £13,500.
Aided by the barrister they won ( I defended the £13,500 myself)
My employer's solicitor then proceeded to try to retreive costs ( capped at £10,000 ). They offered a £5k out of court settlement to me.
The day before the hearing they withdrew. They did inform me however that I had been charged for something that was not claimed for
I requested a review after time and after a lot of messing about and threats to escalate I got it
Judge confirmed what I had been charged for and it wasn't what was on ET3, presented in court or displayed in judgement
What they received £13,500 for would not stand up in any straight court - which is probably why it was not claimed for
My Question is, can I start a civil action against an ET judge or is she above the law? If I can I have this whole strange case in writing

THANK YOU

[wales01man]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

Would think suing a Judge would be difficult is the best option to if possible dispute the fees and ask for a full breakdown,
I expect that the employer will go after the OP for these expenses in a very aggressive way get some legal help ASAP

[bluebottle]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

Employment Tribunals fall under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and any complaint about the conduct of an ET judge should be directed to them. If it has resulted in a person suffering loss that was avoidable, had it not been for such conduct, then HMCTS should be told.

In the first instance, approach -

Correspondence, Complaints & Litigation Unit
Her Majesty's Courts & Tribunals Service
102 Petty France
London SW1

They will be able to route any complaint to the correct department within HMCTS.

[teaboy2]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

Why were they counter claiming for £13,500? Sounds to me like they claimed your actions that led to your dismissal incurred them an expense of £13,500.

We need to know the back ground details here, as to why you were dismissed in the first place?! Otherwise your asking us a question that we can not possibly give an answer too, as we simply do not know what the background to the case is and as such can not determine ourselves as to why you may have lost at tribunal or whether it was actually a biased judgement or not!

[LondonArea]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

Many thanks for your responses.

I worked for an agency who paid me a salary.

They asked me to attend an interview for a 3-6 month temp placement in Bristol - I live in London - starting 3 days later

I said I did not want to be considered and was sacked ( that was it as the ET3 shows)

I took them to ET

They with aid of Solicitors counterclaimed £13,500 for training costs ( they itemised a bill after they sacked me)

I made a point of saying that these training costs were ludicrous - it was self taught, in house and very short

The Judge - who I know is familiar with the Solicitors - changed the claim to liquidated damages for "damage to reputation and lost earnings" - as the training costs wouldn't stand up. How do I know this? I was told by my employer. I sought a review after time and this was confirmed by judge.

None of the 'liquidated damage' was presented in court or in the ET3 ( or in the judgement) and even if it had have been it would still have been legally unenforceable

I have already been written to by the Regional Judge and David Latham

No reason or excuse has been offered - I don't in the circumstances i.e. me being unrepresented and employer having Solicitors and Barrister on side - think it is possible for them to justify finding against me for something that wasn't claimed

I am sad to say, and I know I can't challenge this with the court, that much of the evidence presented in the judgement was fabricated by the judge ( sitting alone) - not that this really matters to me now however. The easy win in this case is over the £13,500 and liquidated damages

[teaboy2]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

in that case follow the route suggested by Bluebottle first before taking any civil action - Also speak to a solicitor, you may get legal aid if your not working and meet the eligibility requirements.

Also did you actually appeal the tribunal ruling? Heres some info in case you haven't - http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/employment-appeals

[SpringerSpaniel]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

There are 3 possible routes of challenge:

i) to appeal the decisions made to the EAT;

ii) to take the employment tribunal to Judicial Review as either a) acting ultra vires and/or b) making orders which no reasonable judge / tribunal would have made;

iii) to make a complaint about the court and tribunal service as described by BlueBottle.

Both i) and ii) have time limits.

[LondonArea]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

Hi - I sought, and after a bit of threatening talk, received a Judicial Review after time. It was confirmed to me that I had been charged for liquidated damages. I asked who had asked for Liquidated Damages to be considered - my letter was passed on according to the ET - to the Judge. She chose not to respond.

The Regional Judge told me that the Judge was 'independent' and to contact the EAT

My Appeal failed on the 42 day hurdle

I complainned to the OJC. Sadly this complaint was sent to the ET and I'm not naive enough to think that they're hell bent on rooting out wrongdoing in view of the public.

Thanks for your help - I just wish I could get a day in court with this woman - although I'm sure she'd settle out of court

[charitynjw]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

Did you request that the tribunal judge gave 'reasons' for the decision?

You have a right to know why you lost the case (or won it, as the case may be).

[ricky87]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

I did not know that. I have always been asked to prove citizenship when hired.I was let go and my employer bragged about replacing me with an illegal.but i feel happy for your remarks and updating

[LondonArea]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

THank you everyone

"Did you request that the tribunal judge gave 'reasons' for the decision?

You have a right to know why you lost the case (or won it, as the case may be). "


You bet I did! I even had the Regional Judge scouring it ( I'm happy to post all this information up btw I have it all scanned)
The problem is, imo, that the 'credibility' of the organization far outweighs the importance of the judgements the staff give out. In the end the Regional Judge said you'll have to go to the EAT.

I did as he suggested - and with a sequential logical chronological series of events using quotes showed what happened

[SpringerSpaniel]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

How did you get on in the EAT ?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

How did you get on in the EAT ?

Was he stuffed so he could EAT no more?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

my employer bragged about replacing me with an illegal.

Did you tell the Immigration and Border Agency about that?

I'm sure they could make the life of your former employer very interesting. msl:

[charitynjw]

Re: Civil action against Employment Judge - is it possible?

How did you get on in the EAT ?

I think the OP was out of time.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-th...d/independence

The ways in which independence is protected and its limits

Whilst an independent and impartial judiciary is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, the practical ways in which this is given effect are often treated with suspicion. For example, judges are given immunity from prosecution for any acts they carry out in performance of their judicial function. They also benefit from immunity from being sued for defamation for the things they say about parties or witnesses in the course of hearing cases. These principles have led some people to suggest that Judges are somehow ‘above the law’.
However, it is not right to say that Judges are above the law. Judges are subject to the law in the same way as any other citizen. The Lord Chief Justice or Lord Chancellor may refer a judge to the Office for Judicial Complaints in order to establish whether it would be appropriate to remove them from office in circumstances where they have been found to have committed a criminal offence.
Judicial independence does, however, mean that judges must be free to exercise their judicial powers without interference from litigants, the State, the media or powerful individuals or entities, such as large companies. This is an important principle because judges often decide matters between the citizen and the state and between citizens and powerful entities. For example, it is clearly inappropriate for the judge in charge of a criminal trial against an individual citizen to be influenced by the state. It would be unacceptable for the judge to come under pressure to admit or not admit certain evidence, how to direct the jury, or to pass a particular sentence. Decisions must be made on the basis of the facts of the case and the law alone.
Judicial independence is important whether the judge is dealing with a civil or a criminal case. Individuals involved in any kind of case before the courts need to be sure that the judge dealing with their case cannot be influenced by an outside party or by the judge’s own personal interests, such as a fear of being sued for defamation by litigants about whom the judge is required in the course of proceedings or judgment to make adverse comment. This requirement that judges be free from any improper influence also underpins the duty placed on them to declare personal interests in any case before it starts, to ensure that there is neither any bias or partiality, or any appearance of such.