IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL AT LONDON
BETWEEN:-
DAVID
BEAUMONT APPLICANT
AND
AMICUS MSF RESPONDENT
APPLICATION THAT COSTS BE AWARDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT
I maintain that the respondents have acted unreasonably from the
beginning of my case. In particular
All this has caused me the maximum amount of work in preparing my
case. I ask that my costs be
awarded. Here is a chronological
history of the unreasonable behavior.
.
18th June Mr. Pinder of EAD wrote to say "I may ask the tribunal to
arrange a pre-hearing review of your application, as in my view and on the
basis of your currently pleaded case it is wholly misconceived". Yet here we are conceding…
21st August I am telephoned by the tribunal and told that Mr. Pinder has
made an application to postpone the case.
Mr. Pinder did not copy me in on that application.
22nd August at the directions hearing I complain to the chair Mr.
Solomons about the above. He reminds
Miss K Newton of EAD that they should copy me in on such applications.
22nd August. At the Directions hearing Miss K Newton of EAD brings up
the charge of anti-Semitism against me.
This charge is wholly false and offensive and has never been withdrawn,
even though the respondents are now pleading guilty.
9th September - the first deadline set at the Directions hearing. I provide the respondents with my further
and better particulars the day before.
At the same time I write and request the essential documents that have
been withheld from me, (for example the investigation report!), to this day in
fact.
14th September I am re-instated.
I write to the respondents the next day to say that the respondents appear
to have admitted to me that my expulsion was illegal and therefore we should
have an extremely short hearing without witnesses, please would they confirm.
16th September the second deadline, this time for disclosure of
documents. EAD have not sent me the
essential documents I need, for example the minutes of the meeting at which I
was expelled and the investigation report given to the GPFC which started my
expulsion process.
18th September EAD write to tell me that "In view of the fact that
your appeal has been allowed concludes the internal procedure, so that in fact
, no disciplinary action has been taken against you by my clients". They ask me to withdraw my claim. They further state that they will request a
preliminary hearing to decide the above.
They insist that if I continue they will defend the claim and that I am
being vexatious. EAD conclude "my
clients do not admit that you were subject to unjustifiable
discipline". Yet here we are
conceding…
24th September I receive from EAD an extract from a letter they have
written to the tribunal, which now appears to argue that although |I have been
disciplined it is within the terms of my contract with the respondent and my
seven months of expulsion is an "event which has no current practical significance".
27th September EAD write to the Tribunal to say that "if the matter
does proceed to a substantive hearing the respondents will clearly need to
disclose documents relevant to the disciplinary procedure, and these items will
be exchanged with the applicant without the need for any order." I only get the letter because the Tribunal
copy me in on their reply. I have not
received these documents to this day.
30th September, the deadline for the Respondents to prepare and agree a
bundle of documents. No response from
EAD.
1st October I write to EAD to as again for disclosure of the documents,
and ask who their witnesses will be. I
attach a list of my witnesses.
7th October. the deadline for us
to exchange witness statements. I
provide EAD with my 3 witnesses statements.
Without the missing documents I am unable to complete my own
documents. EAD do not provide me with
any witness documents.
7th October EAD write to me to explain to me that "it is wrong to
say that the appeal was not heard" and that "to suggest it was not an
appeal is unrealistic, in that you attended with your representative and with
material to present an appeal".
7th October I write to the respondents offering a settlement in which I
will not pursue them for compensation if they undertake to cease all
outstanding disciplinary action against me.
7th October I discover that EAD have again applied for postponement
without copying me in. I deduce this
from the tribunal's reply to them denying the application, copied to me.
8th October I remind EAD that I have
not received the essential documents yet.
I also ask for sight of their list of documents.
8th October I respond
positively to the respondents without prejudice suggested statement to settle
the case. All that I ask is changed
in the statement is that “of the allegations which were raised
against him and which led to” is replaced by “actions by Mr Beaumont prior to”,
a minor change. I require only that I
am protected from future discipline for past actions. Again I am willing to agree not to persue the respondents for
compensation and also not to litigate against them for the anti-Semitism
libel.
8th October. In a
further concession and in an attempt to agree a settlement statement, I write
that I am also prepared to limit my protection to my past actions that are
known about by the respondents. They
decline.
9th October EAD make their third application for postponement. Again I am not copied in but at least this
time EAD do tell me they are doing it.
In fact they tell me, without prejudice, that if this application is
refused they will promptly concede the case.
10th October. True to their word
EAD, having had their postponement application declined, immediately concede
the case, one working day before the hearing is to start.