Posted 28 June 2020
Another Version of Judgement of Claim Number 3202219/2016
On 25 June 2020, I received via an email attachment, a ‘Revised Corrected Reserved Judgment’ signed by the black female West Indian Employment Judge. It was dated 9 June 2020. This is the third version of the judgment in relation to claim number 3202219/2016.
There are are now multiple versions of the judgment. For examples,
In the first version of the judgment, i.e. the “Reserved Judgment”, Sharon Harrington’s name was removed as the Second Respondent.
In the second version, i.e. the “Corrected Reserved Judgment”, Sharon Harrington’s name was added as the Second Respondent. But the Employment Judge failed to address my concerns over the publication of my date of birth.
Following the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) judgment dated 20 May 2020 regarding my Appeal, there is now a third version of the judgment, i.e. “Revised Corrected Reserved Judgment”.
The “Revised Corrected Reserved Judgment” appears to be a reaction to the EAT judgment of my Appeal.
Application to have my date of birth removed from the Reserved Judgment and from the Corrected Reserved Judgment
In relation to the publication of my date of birth which was damaging, I made an application to the black West Indian Employment Judge on 3 May 2019 for the removal of my date of birth as appeared at paragraph 1 in the “Reserved Judgment” and the “Corrected Reserved Judgment”.
I contended that it was not necessary for my date of birth to appear in the judgment or to make my date of birth public. Also, I suggested that it was sufficient to state my age as the White Employment Judge had done at paragraph 27 in the Reserved Judgement of Claim Number 3200656/2015.
In addition, I explained the fact that I was a victim of identity theft in which my name and date of birth were used to obtain loans and other credits, (I had to sue to clear my name. I am grateful to the High Court Judge who heard my case for allowing me to adduce relevant evidence and to the other side’s Counsel for being fair-minded, gracious and magnanimous).
The West Indian Employment Judge Refused my Application
In her reply dated 26 July 2019, the black female West Indian Employment Judge refused my application to have my date of birth removed in the “Reserved Judgment” and in the “Corrected Reserved Judgment”. Further, she sought to justify the public disclosure of my date of birth. My date of birth remained published online for all to see. I have suffered the consequences of her action or failure to act.
I find it hard to believe that the black West Indian Employment Judge did not foresee the consequences of the publication of my date of birth. Further, I am at a loss as to why she waited until after the EAT judgment of my Appeal to come up with the ‘Revised Corrected Reserved Judgment’.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Second Claim - see update
The second claim, case number 3202219/2016, flowed from the first. I was dismissed after the Reserved Judgment of the first claim was sent to the parties.