Royal Courts of Justice, London - Personal Injury Litigation
I have just come from the last day of my personal injury trial before His Honour Mr Robert Owen QC who has found against me. Apparently, there is a lack of evidence of psychiatric injury linking to stress in the case. He claimed there was no breach of contract, no breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence, no professional negligence, no sex discrimination, no criminal activities concerning His Honour Mr Justice Morrison of the EAT in the Masons case, albeit he did make a statement concerning the judgment lacking 5 case precedent (but you will need to read the judgment to establish what it is - not as yet to hand, even though I took notes of summation). He also claimed that he preferred the witness evidence of the Respondents to my evidence. I do admit that I had to concede defeat on the evidence of the 2nd Defendant Nick Carnell for which I apologise unreservedly, but that I still proved "changed, half and wrong" instructions against him.
However, the ratio decidendi in the case is that a person can experience being stressed because they are under valued and underburdened which can result in a psychiatric injury just as a person can be stressed by being overburdened leading to psychiatric injury.
The judge did say that a person would have to be "starved" of work for this ratio to be used. On the evidence in my case, I had provided to respondents' solicitors my diaries for 1996, 1997 but not 1998 which they claim no longer exists. In these diaries it shows that I was indeed starved of work from time to time, however Respondents' solicitors did not put the data in the court bundles, so there was effectively a lack of evidence. Whilst during the case I did explain this to the Judge and offered him to view my diaries twice he did not do so, and has consequently erred in his judgment concerning evidence being lacking on this point. He further stated that as I had taken almost a month to prepare a Minute of a Meeting that this in someway meant that I was not starved of work. This point related to a period in 1996 when indeed I was not complaining I was starved of work, but was claiming that the work I had been given was below the level of a paralegal and was in effect that of other employed people at SJB such as general handyperson, librarian, marketing person or in otherwords akin to a colleague who was an administrator. The point being that at this juncture I should have been seconded along with two colleagues to a very large paralegal project rather than demoted. The judge accepted my bosses evidence 1st and 3rd Defendents (Julian Critchlow and Ian Insley) that this work was general paralegal duties and not a demotion. They made the distinction that I was a general paralegal not a legal paralegal and the judge accepted this even although my contractual status was paralegal and no distinction existed. The performance figures for 1998 show that my situation had become worse in the department during that time. The situation in the department was as a consequence of the 1st Defendant upon the settlement of the Ladbrokes case having no work of his own and being seconded to the PFI team and not providing any work to me. Whilst there was work in the department, work was not provided to me and I had to fend for myself for work as there was no line management at paralegal level. Noticeably, I could work well for others such as the Environmental, EC law and Advocacy Departments (not difficult when the people are professional) but not my boss Nicholas Carnell, 2nd Defendent. It was not deemed that a breach of contract or a breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence occurred at all. Further, it was stated that my degree from Birbeck College was not from a university they would consider for articles, even although the grade was the same as two colleagues Elie and Solomon who both got articles on the back of the Ladbrokes case. I trained and supervised Solomon on the Ladbrokes case and was working at a higher level than him at that stage. (Solomon is now a partner in a law firm). Whilst I also trained Elie, he took the training but did not do any of the work - looks good on his CV though.
I believe no one comes out of the judgment looking like a saint, the judgment is fair with the exception of the statement by Ros Borthwick which was never challenged as no right of reply existed at the time - also given that no problems were experienced at the client legal team at Guinness, creating Diageo plc (a £24 billion global merger via the EC department), her statements are considered defamatory. I also initially asked to be removed from the project due to Ros Borthwick's conduct towards me but was seconded instead to the client legal team.
I am pleased that there is now a new rule of law as an outcome of this case. Whilst I consider I should have won the case, I am not going to appeal but get on with what's left of my life - the case was hanging over me for too long (Nov 2004 to February 2014). It unfortunately is likely to be known as the "shit" case (but you will need to read the judgment to see why! Or take a look at the Oxford English Dictionary!), but I was pleased with my performance during the week against learned Counsel, William Vandyck, Crown Office Chambers, who put up a good fight. Please bear in mind I have never been trained, so I did experience some difficulty in court.
So I think I got justice because there is a new rule of law, but that the decision outcome is unjust because there has been a miscarriage of justice due to lack of evidence, ie the diaries and performance figures for 1998.
My dissertation "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" via Birbeck College, University of London (1997) and my paper "ADR the Achillies Heel of a Democracy" pass from the private domain and this blog to the public domain and are both relevant to the Woolf Reforms in England & Wales. My dissertation is stated by the judge to be a 2:1 quality which had to be reiterated because my boss 1st Defendant Julian Critchlow claimed not to rate it substantially whilst also claiming that he helped me to do it, which he did not - it was all my own efforts substantially. He did read it after it had been handed in. It is quite clear that the 1st Defendant and 3rd Defendant were engaged in lowering me in the esteem of right thinking people.
I will post the judgment when I receive it. I have not automatically received a copy of the judgment. This may be a human rights issue that needs to be flagged up with the ECHR. When you pay your trial fee (mine was £1,200 for 5 days) should this fee also include a paper copy of the judgment as part of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and a right to a fair hearing should include the judgment! Currently you have to pay a different provider for a copy of the judgment transcript which can start at £300.
In the news recently a newspaper has been trying to get access to letters sent by Prince Charles to politicians - "the Spider letters". (I also claim royal descent from King John Balliol, which may be mythical, but there is a pedigree in existence from the 12th Century in the Jermy family tree suggesting a link - my mother's maiden name is Jermy and from Norfolk where the Jermy family originate). Perhaps the newspaper would also like to have sight of a letter I wrote to Tony Blair, whilst Prime Minister, on 22 June 2000. The letter has passed to the public domain via the court case Lesley McDade v S J Berwin & Co and others and relates to an alleged breach of the Treaty of European Union by the Masons case. Romano Prodi was also notified at the time and may have come over for a chat to the PM. Fair's fair on this issue and I also write to politicians from time to time on current affairs. It is democratic for Prince Charles to be included in society in this way - else everyone with a Royal Pedigree would experience being unequal in society rather than inequality.
However, the ratio decidendi in the case is that a person can experience being stressed because they are under valued and underburdened which can result in a psychiatric injury just as a person can be stressed by being overburdened leading to psychiatric injury.
The judge did say that a person would have to be "starved" of work for this ratio to be used. On the evidence in my case, I had provided to respondents' solicitors my diaries for 1996, 1997 but not 1998 which they claim no longer exists. In these diaries it shows that I was indeed starved of work from time to time, however Respondents' solicitors did not put the data in the court bundles, so there was effectively a lack of evidence. Whilst during the case I did explain this to the Judge and offered him to view my diaries twice he did not do so, and has consequently erred in his judgment concerning evidence being lacking on this point. He further stated that as I had taken almost a month to prepare a Minute of a Meeting that this in someway meant that I was not starved of work. This point related to a period in 1996 when indeed I was not complaining I was starved of work, but was claiming that the work I had been given was below the level of a paralegal and was in effect that of other employed people at SJB such as general handyperson, librarian, marketing person or in otherwords akin to a colleague who was an administrator. The point being that at this juncture I should have been seconded along with two colleagues to a very large paralegal project rather than demoted. The judge accepted my bosses evidence 1st and 3rd Defendents (Julian Critchlow and Ian Insley) that this work was general paralegal duties and not a demotion. They made the distinction that I was a general paralegal not a legal paralegal and the judge accepted this even although my contractual status was paralegal and no distinction existed. The performance figures for 1998 show that my situation had become worse in the department during that time. The situation in the department was as a consequence of the 1st Defendant upon the settlement of the Ladbrokes case having no work of his own and being seconded to the PFI team and not providing any work to me. Whilst there was work in the department, work was not provided to me and I had to fend for myself for work as there was no line management at paralegal level. Noticeably, I could work well for others such as the Environmental, EC law and Advocacy Departments (not difficult when the people are professional) but not my boss Nicholas Carnell, 2nd Defendent. It was not deemed that a breach of contract or a breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence occurred at all. Further, it was stated that my degree from Birbeck College was not from a university they would consider for articles, even although the grade was the same as two colleagues Elie and Solomon who both got articles on the back of the Ladbrokes case. I trained and supervised Solomon on the Ladbrokes case and was working at a higher level than him at that stage. (Solomon is now a partner in a law firm). Whilst I also trained Elie, he took the training but did not do any of the work - looks good on his CV though.
I believe no one comes out of the judgment looking like a saint, the judgment is fair with the exception of the statement by Ros Borthwick which was never challenged as no right of reply existed at the time - also given that no problems were experienced at the client legal team at Guinness, creating Diageo plc (a £24 billion global merger via the EC department), her statements are considered defamatory. I also initially asked to be removed from the project due to Ros Borthwick's conduct towards me but was seconded instead to the client legal team.
I am pleased that there is now a new rule of law as an outcome of this case. Whilst I consider I should have won the case, I am not going to appeal but get on with what's left of my life - the case was hanging over me for too long (Nov 2004 to February 2014). It unfortunately is likely to be known as the "shit" case (but you will need to read the judgment to see why! Or take a look at the Oxford English Dictionary!), but I was pleased with my performance during the week against learned Counsel, William Vandyck, Crown Office Chambers, who put up a good fight. Please bear in mind I have never been trained, so I did experience some difficulty in court.
So I think I got justice because there is a new rule of law, but that the decision outcome is unjust because there has been a miscarriage of justice due to lack of evidence, ie the diaries and performance figures for 1998.
My dissertation "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" via Birbeck College, University of London (1997) and my paper "ADR the Achillies Heel of a Democracy" pass from the private domain and this blog to the public domain and are both relevant to the Woolf Reforms in England & Wales. My dissertation is stated by the judge to be a 2:1 quality which had to be reiterated because my boss 1st Defendant Julian Critchlow claimed not to rate it substantially whilst also claiming that he helped me to do it, which he did not - it was all my own efforts substantially. He did read it after it had been handed in. It is quite clear that the 1st Defendant and 3rd Defendant were engaged in lowering me in the esteem of right thinking people.
I will post the judgment when I receive it. I have not automatically received a copy of the judgment. This may be a human rights issue that needs to be flagged up with the ECHR. When you pay your trial fee (mine was £1,200 for 5 days) should this fee also include a paper copy of the judgment as part of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and a right to a fair hearing should include the judgment! Currently you have to pay a different provider for a copy of the judgment transcript which can start at £300.
In the news recently a newspaper has been trying to get access to letters sent by Prince Charles to politicians - "the Spider letters". (I also claim royal descent from King John Balliol, which may be mythical, but there is a pedigree in existence from the 12th Century in the Jermy family tree suggesting a link - my mother's maiden name is Jermy and from Norfolk where the Jermy family originate). Perhaps the newspaper would also like to have sight of a letter I wrote to Tony Blair, whilst Prime Minister, on 22 June 2000. The letter has passed to the public domain via the court case Lesley McDade v S J Berwin & Co and others and relates to an alleged breach of the Treaty of European Union by the Masons case. Romano Prodi was also notified at the time and may have come over for a chat to the PM. Fair's fair on this issue and I also write to politicians from time to time on current affairs. It is democratic for Prince Charles to be included in society in this way - else everyone with a Royal Pedigree would experience being unequal in society rather than inequality.
posted by Lesley McDade at 2:20 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home