Re:
G.T. v Gemstar, @ Tribunals since 2/7/03
The substantive Legal submissions as
listed below, as well as over a 200 page presentation / Bundle ( most of which were
primary evidence), and containing a plethora of legal points and supported
by relevant and applicable precedent caselaw was 'Struck Out' at the purported
Judicial Review on 3/3/05 (max duration stated 2hours) and yet todate (8
weeks later) there has been no receipt of Transcripts to substantiate EAT's
Reasonings to Issuance of False Order on 3/3/05.
Applicant's correspondence of 21/4/05 (Refer
to image on Lhs) re-affirms the false processes since incept
of case and deals with main issues since 3/3/05 when the false EAT Order was issued.
Preceding this there were other such EAT Orders on 16/11/04 and 21/12/04. Both of these
were given without issuance of Transcripts & Reasonings further substantiating the
Suppressions with intent.
Per Submissions
and Legal Skeleton Arguments / Statements:
A.1)
The Applicant, lodges and serves this statement by way of Submissions and Legal
Arguments/Statements to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) for presentation to the
Judicial Review set for the
3rd March 2005.
A.2)
Applicant will be relying on written submissions to substantiate her case due to her
experience of obstructions in the process of this case which denied her a Fair Hearing (as dealt below and in the Bundle 3/3/05) per
Article 6 ECoHR.
A.3)
The EAT has relegated this Review to a Preliminary
Hearing under the creation of False Instruments (Pg126-s.14.1 )
rather
than going to a
Full Hearing or an outright Strike Out, in view of legal evidence provided
that Respondents case was flawed, contained perjure Witness statements and further
diverted case from EAT process to Barnet County Court added to evidence of Collusion and
Fraud and that it evaded and not represented
the true essence of the case on hand.
A.4)
In view of the above, the Applicant’s case is emerging into one of Public Interest (Pg7-s.12).
A.5)
APPLICANT
DEPRIVED OF A FAIR HEARING AT TRIBUNALS FROM INCEPT:
The ET process was initiated on 2/7/03.
From incept of case including two DH and communications with ET there was no adherence to
disclosure, Due Process, and Respondents were allowed to selectively override process,
despite the fact that in October 2003 they were in Contempt of the same Tribunal in a
preceding case that of Dr
Drazin (Oct 03),
(Pg.9-s.5). As a result of ET’s inability to enforce its
own procedures and that of ECoHR to a Fair Hearing (Pg1/2/3-s.3a
to s.6),
this violated Article 6 and 7 of the ECoHR.
Other
denial and abductions of rights and misapplication of the law culminating with the
suppression of the entire submission (Pg.117)
of Applicant’s EAT Review Bundle 27/10/04
amounting to a criminal offence (Pg.126-s.14.1).
A.6)
MATERIAL FAILINGS OF ET:
1)
Lack
Of Due Process and inability of ET to enforce this on Respondents as in the ruling of The
Commissioner for Racial Equality Ex.p. Cottrell & Rothon,
where the rule of natural justice requires that the proceedings “must be conducted in a way which is
fair…..in all the circumstances.” (Pgs1/2/3-s.3a to s.6).
2)<>
No Notice of Hearing of 27/1/04
was provided until process began (sect.6.2.7-Pg.1).
Issues raised to ET on 8/12/03 and subsequent
reminders on the 22/12/03 (Pg34);
6/1/04(Pg35)
20/1/04 (Pg36);
23/1/04 (Pg37);
26/1/04 (Pg38)
and on 27/1/04(Pg39)
were
not processed or replied to until the receipt of a copy of a letter from ET to Respondent
dt 20/1/04 (Pg75)
where Respondents were asked to reply to Applicant’s fax of 8/12/03, as above and
without any mention or reference to the Notice of Hearing date. Respondents reply reached
Applicant on 28/1/04 (Pg73),
an important document being purposely delayed-two days into purported Hearing (28/1/04)
which further supports that Due Process was not followed. The actual date of the Hearing
was 27/1/04
and this was the date Applicant received this Notice (sect.6.2.7-pg1).
Also
in accordance to Hendrikman
…,
the European
Court
ruled that “judgement obtained in ignorance is
not enforceable” ( Pg3-s.6 &
Pg5-s.9c). It is evident that ET were in contempt of this and
Article 6 ECoHR. Applicant’s fax to ET dt
8/12/03
and subsequent reminders were neither acknowledged or responded to until 27/1/04
(apprx 51 days later).
3)
Following
from pt.2 above, evidence shows that Respondents were in possession of Applicant’s
fax dt 8/12/03 on the same day, that is 8/12/03 and it is in fact recorded as being
received by Respondents on 8/12/03 (Pg84)
top right hand corner @15:15, when this was transmitted by Applicant on 8/12/03 @13:44
bottom (Pg84)..
Confirmation of this, as per copy telephone listing of Mon 08 Dec @ 13:46,
to 0207 2738686 (Pg.85).
From this, it is evident that ET had transmitted the above mentioned document within 1½ hours yet the ET in their letter, after 44 days,
was requesting for a “reply by return” pointing to aiding and abetting with
intent to collude to discriminate against the Applicant whereas Respondents had ample time
(Pg2-s.3b)
to
consider response.
4)
Besides the ET Striking the Case Out and inflicting substantial legal costs of £7,400
against Applicant, the ET ignored Applicant’s plea
regarding Strike Out and substantial costs levied (Pg9-s.4
& s.5)
. Furthermore, no consideration was placed in the ruling of Top
Rank which
states “…it is only if I consider that
there is no option but to strike out…should take that course in pursuance of the
overriding objective.” Besides not adhering to such precedents the ET levied
substantial legal costs in proceedings held in the absence of the Applicant.
5)
Further irregularities by ET were performed, when the same Chairman and panel held Review
Hearing of 27/8/04,
being the same panel that held the first Hearing of 27/1/04. Under Article
6 of the ECoHR, it was
held that Judges should not sit on the Appeal/Review in the same case as they had decided,
as this deprives impartiality and independence.
This invalidates ET’s Decisions which further discriminate and victimise the
Applicant (Pg3-s.7
& s.8).
6)
Despite lack of impartiality and independence the ET suppressed Applicant’s entire
submissions of 27/8/04 (Pgs
8 to 62, Pg3-s.7 & Pg4-s.8 )
which is a criminal offence making them into false instruments for the pecuniary advantage of the Respondents that
leads to collusion and fraud (Pg1-s.1
& Pg6/7-s.11). Such
irregularities (lack of impartiality and independence) were showed full support by ET (sect.6.2.1
pg5 para21).
7)
Additionally, the ET violated its own rules 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(e). Rule 13(1)(a) states “The decision was wrongly made as a result of an
error on the part of the Tribunal staff.” Rule 13(1)(e) states: “The interest of Justice require such a
review”. The Applicant’s rights under both Rulings were clearly denied and
abducted by the ET (Pg4-s.9b).
8)
ET Aiding and Abetting Respondents (Pg6-s.10).
9)
ET’s Collusion and Fraud to the detrimental cost of the applicant (Pg1-s.1,
Pg6/7-s.11).
10)
OTHER IRREGULARITIES BY ET:
ET
avoiding at all times to meet requests that would have further validated Applicant’s
case such as Affidavits re Applicant’s purported Barrister (Pg101-pt.5),
Refusal of access to Transcripts (Pg112 &
113), Refusal
of ET’s Rules and Regulations (Pg114), further case frustration (Pg61-pt3,
Pg106 & 107)
caused by the preferential treatment in favour of Respondents including delay of
providing Applicant with the Decision of 10/3/04 despite requests (Pg108
to 111)
and concluded by his unwillingness to sign a Declaration of upholding proper practices in
the handling of this case (Pg103,104
&105).
A.7) RESPONDENTS BREACHES LEADING TO COLLUSION AND
FRAUD:
1)The
Respondents, were aided and abetted by Tribunals (Pg6-s.10).
2)Failed
to participate in Due Process
3)
Frustrated and victimised Applicant and case - their failure to process Applicant Rep.
reminder fax dt 8/10/04
(pg64
to 66) by
their response that such “were not
appropriate” (Pg67)
when
these issues, pointed to a flawed case and collusion and fraud under ..Canterbury County Council and Zincroft …(Pg1-s.1&2,
Pg6/7-s.11),
also
nullifying Defence in this case.
4)
Instead of substantiating/or otherwise Applicant’s faxes (Pgs65&66)
originally requested on 28/9/04 (Pg67)
the Respondents opted in proceeding to enforce the illegal costs levied on Applicant by
diverting case to the Barnet County Court on the 6/10/04 (Pg147)
when in fact Respondents were notified through Applicant’s fax dt 27/9/04 (pg71)
that
Collusion and Fraud were being cited.
The
above submissions show beyond any reasonable doubt that Applicant rights have been denied,
abducted under misapplication of the Law (both local and international ), with intent to
defraud Applicant of substantial sums amid all the social, other frustrations and
victimisation implanted on her and her family, and further evidence substantiates
Applicant’s rightful claims under the Skeleton Legal Arguments/Statements below:
B)
SKELETON LEGAL ARGUMENTS/STATEMENTS SUPPORTED BY APPLICANT’S BUNDLE 3/3/05
Applicant’s
Bundle 3/3/05 (Pg1 to 125)
submitted on 7/2/05 with additional documents (Pgs126 to156)
following
on 25/2/05, have been dissected into 19 sections
covered under s.1 to s.14 below and each split into four categories:
A)
Applicable Case Law; B) Legal
Interpretation; C) Evidence and
D) The Civil Test.
1)
Respondents Defence Nullified
A)
Applicable Case Law: 1)
...Canterbury
County Council.. applies.
It was held that a decision is void if it is based
on information that is not correct or incomplete. and 2)
Zincroft case whereby the Court of Appeal determined that a
party to the proceedings could plead fraud and set aside judgement and costs and adduce
substantial evidence of the fraud pleaded. Case Supported by lord Denning’s ruling in
Lazarus case where he stated “..No Judgement of a Court, no Order of a Minister, can be
allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.” 3)
H.T.V… “A public body must not misuse its powers: and it
is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards a private citizen where
there is no overriding public interest to warrant it.”
B)
Legal
Interpretation:
1) The first case above nullifies
Respondent’s case as it is not correct and incomplete (that includes, no adherence to
Due Process, DH’s as well as perjure Witness Statements dt 27/1/04 ) 2).
Under case of Zincroft and Lazarus and in view of evidence provided for Collusion and
Fraud this also nullifies case. 3)
The judgement in H.T.V… above further legally binds decisions in cases 1) and 2) above, where it is stated clearly that “a public body must not misuse its
powers…” and is under a legal obligation to fulfil and instil justice.
C)
Evidence:
Supporting
above case law and legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg1-s.1)
and as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle. Please also refer to
Applicant’s Witness Statement (Pgs12
to 18)
re perjure Witness statements of Respondents.
D)
The Civil Test:
The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the above case law, legal
interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
2. Respondents contempt of incomplete legal process
and case law.
A) Applicable Case Law: 1)
…Canterbury
County Council.., applies. It was held that a
decision is void if it is based on information that is not correct or incomplete. and 2)
Zincroft case whereby the Court of Appeal
determined that a party to the proceedings could
plead fraud and set aside judgement and costs and adduce substantial evidence of the fraud
pleaded. Further supported by 3)
Lazarus case.
B) Legal Interpretation:
ET
Chairman unwilling to sign Declaration in the correct performance of his public duties as
a legal servant (Pg103
to 105) as well as existing process at EAT and above
judgements nullifying Respondents defence further and claim at Barnet County Court.
C)
Evidence:
Supporting above case law and legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg1-s2)
and other sections (Pg127-s.14.7)
as
referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D) The Civil Test:
The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the above case law, legal
interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
3a.
Respondents did not participate to Due Process and neither was this enforced by ET
A)
Applicable Case Law:
1) ..The Commissioner for Racial Equality
Where the rule of natural justice requires that the proceedings “must be conducted in a way which is
fair…..in all the circumstances.” 2)
H.T.V… “A public body must not misuse its
powers: and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards a private
citizen where there is no overriding public interest to warrant it.”
B)
Legal Interpretation:
Due
Process of Law are notice and an opportunity to be heart and the right to defend in an
orderly proceeding. Aside from these, Due Process means fundamental fairness and justice
per ruling in case 1)
above. The ET under a legal obligation to enforce ruling as in case 2)
above.
C)
Evidence:
supporting above case law and legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg1-s3a)
and as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D) The Civil Test:
The
“Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the above case law, legal
interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
3b.
ET’s flow of information to Respondent - Uninterrupted and Instantaneous.
A) Applicable Case Law: H.T.V… “A
public body must not misuse its powers: and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly
or unjustly towards a private citizen where there is no overriding public interest to
warrant it.”
B)
Legal Interpretation: “A
public body must not act unfairly….”
C)
Evidence:
Supporting above case law and legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg2-s3b)
and
as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D)
The Civil Test:
The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the above case law, legal
interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
3c.
The 1st and 2nd DH were not uniform, particularly on the issues of
disclosure which facilitated Respondents.
A)
Applicable Case Law:
H.T.V… “A public body must not misuse its
powers: and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards a private
citizen where there is no overriding public interest to warrant it.”
B) Legal Interpretation: “A
public body must not act unfairly….”
as its role is to uphold principles of justice.
C)
Evidence:
Supporting above case law and legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg2-s3c)
and as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D)
The Civil Test:
The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the above case law, legal
interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
3d.
Overall Due Process was selectively followed to the
detriment and inflicted further hardship on Applicant.
A)
Applicable Case Law:
:1)
H.T.V…“A public body must not misuse its
powers: and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards a private
citizen where there is no overriding public interest to warrant it.” 2)
Top
Rank .. “…it is only if I consider that
there is no option but to strike out…should take that course in pursuance of the
overriding objective.” 3)
Zincroft .. whereby
the Court of Appeal determined that a party to the proceedings could plead fraud and set
aside judgement and costs and adduce substantial evidence of the fraud pleaded. Also
supported by Lord Denning’s ruling in 4)
Lazarus ..case.
B)
Legal Interpretation: 1) “A
public body must not act unfairly….”
to
inflict by avoidance of legal procedure.
2)
above
on the ruling of as well as the draconian
effects of a Strike Out Order, abduction of
rights and unwarranted
levy of substantial Legal Costs (Pg9-s.4
& 5)
further
endorsed Collusion and Fraud per case 3)
and 4)
above.
C)
Evidence:
Supporting above case law and legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg2-s3d)
and as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D)
The Civil Test:
The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the above case law, legal
interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
3e. Respondents
Failure to Adherence.
A)
Applicable Case Law:
..Canterbury
County Council.., applies. It was held that a decision is void if it is based on
information that is not correct or incomplete.
B)
Legal Interpretation:
Ignorance in ET’s application of Adherence by Respondents (supports Aiding and
Abetting) as well as defence being nullified under above case. Respondents not adhering to Due Process and in
contempt of DH.
C)
Evidence:
Supporting above case law and legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg2-s3e)
and as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D)
The Civil Test:
The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the above case law, legal
interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
4.
Respondents Abducting Applicant’s Rights.
A)
Applicable Case Law: H.T.V…“A public body must not misuse its powers: and it
is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards a private citizen where
there is no overriding public interest to warrant it.”
B)
Legal Interpretation:
“A
public body must not act unfairly….” by tolerating such unjust maneuvers as well
as being in contravention to a Fair Hearing under article 6
C)
Evidence: supporting above case law and
legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg2-s4)
and as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D)
The Civil Test:
The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the above case law,
legal interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in Applicant’s Bundle
3/3/05.
5.
Respondents Contempt of Court in Preceding Employment Case
A)
Applicable Case Law: 1) H.T.V…“A public body must not misuse its powers: and it
is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards a private citizen where
there is no overriding public interest to warrant it.” and 2)
Zincroft.. whereby the Court of Appeal
determined that a party to the proceedings could plead fraud and set aside judgement and
costs and adduce substantial evidence of the fraud pleaded. Case Supported by Lord
Denning’s ruling in Lazarus..
B)
Legal Interpretation: 1)
“A
public body must not act unfairly….”
by
tolerating such abuses and contempt of the law as in the preceding case of Dr Drazin.. 2)
In
view of Collusion and Fraud cited, the Zincroft case and also that of H.T.V. case rulings, ET’s Decision ( including costs ) should be nullified.
C)
Evidence: Supporting above case law and
legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg3-s5)
and as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D)
The Civil Test: The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the
above case law, legal interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in
Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
6.
Denial of Due Process to Applicant.
A)
Applicable case law: 1) ..The Commissioner for Racial Equality..
where the rule of natural justice requires that the proceedings “must be conducted in a way which is
fair…..in all the circumstances.” In Hendrikman..,
the European
Court ruled that judgement obtained in ignorance is not enforceable.
B)
Legal Interpretation: 1) and 2)
Due
Process of Law are notice and an opportunity to present a case an orderly process. Aside
from these, Due Process means fundamental fairness and substantial justice. In this case
addition there was infringement to a Fair Trial under Article 6 of the ECoHR and
infringement of Minority Rights of Applicant under Article 17 of the ECoHR.
C)
Evidence: Supporting above case law and
legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg3-s6)
and as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D)
The Civil Test:
The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the above case law,
legal interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in Applicant’s Bundle
3/3/05.
7.
ET’s Suppression of Information in respect of Applicant’s Fax dt 23/1/04
A)
Applicable case law:
1)
H.T.V… “A public body must not misuse its powers: and it
is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards a private citizen where
there is no overriding public interest to warrant it.” and 2)
Zincroft.. whereby the Court of Appeal
determined that a party to the proceedings could plead fraud and set aside judgement and
costs and adduce substantial evidence of the fraud pleaded. Case Supported by Lord
Denning’s ruling in Lazarus case.
B)
Legal Interpretation: 1)
“A public body must not act unfairly….” 2)
such suppression of information establishes Collusion and Fraud under Zincroft and
Lazarus cases, and securing by false pretence a pecuniary advantage to Respondents through the creation of a false
instrument (Pg37)
as
under the Theft Act 1968 s.18 and s.20 this is considered to be a criminal offence.
C)
Evidence: Supporting above case law and
legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg3-s7)
and as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D)
The Civil Test: The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the
above case law, legal interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in
Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
8.
Suppression of Applicant’s Entire Review Submissions of 27/8/04
A)
Applicable case law:
1)
H.T.V.. “A
public body must not misuse its powers: and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly
or unjustly towards a private citizen where there is no overriding public interest to
warrant it.” and 2)
Zincroft.. whereby the Court of Appeal
determined that a party to the proceedings could plead fraud and set aside judgement and
costs and adduce substantial evidence of the fraud pleaded. Case supported by Lord
Denning’s ruling in Lazarus case.
B)
Legal Interpretation:
1)
“A public body must not act
unfairly….” 2)
Such
suppression of information establishes Collusion and Fraud under Zincroft and Lazarus
cases, and to obtain by false pretence a pecuniary advantage to the Respondents through
the creation of a false instrument (Applicant’s
Review Submissions 27/8/04: Pgs1 to 62 per Bundle 3/3/05)
as
under the Theft Act 1968 s.18 and s.20 this is considered to be a criminal offence.
C)
Evidence: Supporting above case law and
legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg4-s8)
and as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D)
The Civil Test: The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the
above case law, legal interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in
Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
9a.
Decision Reports on 10/3/04
and 15/9/04
are in Contempt of ET Rules
A)
Applicable case law: H.T.V… “A
public body must not misuse its powers: and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly
or unjustly towards a private citizen where there is no overriding public interest to
warrant it.”
B)
Legal Interpretation: “A public body must not act unfairly….”.
C)
Evidence: Supporting above case as
listed in Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05
Cover Sheets (Pg4-s.9a) as referenced thereof to further
detailed evidence with all the supporting documents listed.
D)
The Civil Test: The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the
above case law, legal interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in
Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
9b.:
ET’s Suppression
(Ref s.8 above) violating its own Rules 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(e)
A)
Applicable case law: H.T.V…“A
public body must not misuse its powers: and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly
or unjustly towards a private citizen where there is no overriding public interest to
warrant it.”
B)
Legal Interpretation:
“A
public body must not act unfairly….” particularly
in applying its own rules and procedures. Ignorance of applying correctly Rule 13(1)(a)
and 13(1)(e), by the Judiciary, is no legal defence.
C)
Evidence: Supporting above case law and
legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg4-s9b)
and as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D)
The Civil Test: The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the
above case law, legal interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in
Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
9c.
ET’s Decision Report 15/9/04
A)
Applicable case law:
1)
H.T.V… “A public body must
not misuse its powers: and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly
towards a private citizen where there is no overriding public interest to warrant
it.” 2)
.. Canterbury
County Council…, applies. It was held
that “a decision is void if it is based on
information that is not correct or incomplete”
B)
Legal Interpretation: 1) “A
public body must not act unfairly….”
2)
to support wrong doings by Respondents (ie Non
Disclosure, lack of adherence to Due Process) which Aided and Abetted Respondents (Pg6-s10)
where
Defense was nullified under case 2 above.
C)
Evidence: Supporting above case law and
legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg4,
5 & 6 – s.9c)
and as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D)
The Civil Test: The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the
above case law, legal interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in
Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
10.
ET and EAT Aided and Abetted Respondents
A)
Applicable case law: 1) H.T.V… “A
public body must not misuse its powers: and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly
or unjustly towards a private citizen where there is no overriding public interest to
warrant it.” and 2) .. Canterbury
County Council…, applies. It was held that
“a decision is void if it is based on information that is not correct or
incomplete” 3) Zincroft.. whereby the Court of Appeal determined
that a party to the proceedings could plead fraud and set aside judgement and costs and
adduce evidence of the fraud pleaded. Case also supported by Lord Denning’s ruling in
Lazarus.
B)
Legal Interpretation: 1)
“A public body must not act
unfairly….” 2)
to support wrong doings by Respondents (ie Non Disclosure, lack of adherence to Due Process) Aiding
and Abetting Respondents (Pg6-s10).
3)
leading to suppression of information that supports Collusion and Fraud and through false
pretence gaining pecuniary advantage for Respondents which under the Theft Act 1968 s.18
and s.20 is considered a criminal offence.
C)
Evidence: Supporting above case law and
legal interpretation as listed in Bundle 3/3/05
(Pg6-s10)
and as referenced thereof to further documentary evidence in Bundle.
D)
The Civil Test: The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the
above case law, legal interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in
Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
11. Collusion and Fraud by Tribunals and Respondents
A)
Applicable Case Law:
1)
H.T.V…“A public body must not
misuse its powers: and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards
a private citizen where there is no overriding public interest to warrant it.” and 2)
.. Canterbury
County Council.., applies. It was held that “a
decision is void if it is based on information that is not correct or incomplete” 3) Zincroft.. whereby the Court of Appeal determined that a party to the proceedings could plead fraud and
set aside judgement and costs and adduce substantial evidence of the fraud pleaded.
Case supported by Lord Denning’s ruling in Lazarus..
B)
Legal Interpretation: 1)
“A public body must not act
unfairly….”
2)
..Canterbury County Council…
nullifies the defense and endorses further the
wrong doings 3)
Collusion and Fraud is evident by Tribunals through creation of false instruments (Pg3-s.7,
Pg4-s.8)
to
obtain a pecuniary advantage under the Theft Act 1968 s.18 and s.20 is considered a
criminal offence.
C)
Evidence: Supporting above case law and legal interpretation is listed in
Bundle 3/3/05
(pgs6&7-
s11) as
referenced thereof to further detailed evidence with all the supporting documents listed.
D)
The Civil Test: The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to
the above case law, legal interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in
Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
12.
Principle cases on Public Interest and Natural Justice Discriminating against Applicant
A)
Applicable Case Law: 1) H.T.V…
“A public body must not misuse its powers: and
it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards a private citizen where
there is no overriding public interest to warrant it.” And 2)
The Commissioner for Racial Equality.. where the
rule of natural justice requires that the proceedings “must be conducted in a way
which is fair…..in all the circumstances.”
B)
Legal Interpretation: 1) “A
public body must not act unfairly…. where there is no overriding public interest to
warrant it” 2) “Natural
justice requires that the proceeding must be conducted in a way which is fair…..in
all the circumstances”.
Evidence
shows beyond any reasonable doubt that this was never the case, and the last inappropriate
act to relegated this case to a Preliminary Hearing through further suppression (Pg126-s.14.1)
C)
Evidence: Supporting above case law and legal interpretation is listed in
Bundle 3/3/05 (pg7-s12) as referenced thereof to
further detailed evidence with all the supporting documents listed.
D)
The Civil Test:
The “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true to the above case law, legal
interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
13.
Involves Legal Challenges (Pg7-s.13)
14. Irregularities at EAT
A)
Applicable Case Law:
1) H.T.V…: “A public body must not misuse its powers: and
it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards a private citizen where
there is no overriding public interest to warrant it.” and 2)
The Commissioner for Racial Equality... Where the rule of natural justice requires
that the proceedings “must be conducted in a
way which is fair…..in all the circumstances.”
3)
Zincroft… whereby the Court of Appeal
determined that a party to the proceedings could
plead fraud and set aside judgement and costs and adduce substantial evidence of the fraud
pleaded. Case supported by Lord Denning’s ruling in Lazarus case. 4) ..Canterbury
County Council.., applies. It was held that “a
decision is void if it is based on information that is not correct or incomplete”
B)
Legal Interpretation: 1) “A public body must not act unfairly…where
there is no overriding public interest to warrant it” 2)
“Natural justice requires that the
proceeding must be conducted in a way which is fair…..in all the circumstances”.
Evidence
shows misapplication of the above. 3)
This
case brought to the forefront wrong doings from the Judiciary
and Respondents from incept, and the fact of two suppressions by judges on 16/11/04
and 21/12/04
further suppressed by EAT endorsing wrongdoing. 4)
Supports nullification of Respondents case.
C)
Evidence supporting above case law and legal interpretation is listed in Bundle
3/3/05 (pg7-s12, Pgs126-128) as referenced thereof to further detailed
evidence with all the supporting documents listed.
D)
The Civil Test of the “Balance of Probabilities” will hold true
to the above case law, legal interpretation and evidence paginated and referenced in
Applicant’s Bundle 3/3/05.
Conclusion
Taking into consideration all that has transpired in the handling of this case and in
view of Procedures, Rules, Law and principle Case Law presented as laid above, the EAT is
called upon to uphold principles of justice that have been denied to Applicant and to
provide detail Reasoning for its Decision/judgement under local and international laws,
after considering all submissions and Legal Arguments/Statements as listed above.
In
the circumstances, I call to the Tribunal to grant a Strike Out Order against Respondents
on the grounds listed above. Applicant’s case should proceed to legal remedies after
the many injustices and added frustration endured in the lengthy process of this case. This case has transpired into one of public
interest. In
the event that Respondents case is not Striked Out the Applicant will demand Affidavits on
wrongdoings under oath to be attained from various parties involved.
The above submissions and Skeleton Legal Arguments/Statements are
true and are validated by relevant case law and ECoHR laws, legal interpretation and
evidence as laid above.
Webmaster@tribulations.freeservers.com
|
