ET system is not fit for purpose for Claimants / whistle-blowers especially if a litigant in person.ET judges in my experience were heavily biased in favour of the Respondent. Judge stopped writing during claimants evidence when adverse data about Respondent presented. Claimant's evidence ignored even when it was clearly presented in written and during oral submission. I felt there was also discrimination by the judges - Judgement made in favour of the Respondent (Caucasian male witnesses) even though their evidence was mostly hearsay. Claimants data and hard evidence simply ignored by the judge who made perverse judgement in my view. If the journalist was not present then one would not have guessed that the judgement was related to the same case as it was so heavily biased. No transcripts of recordings provided.ET system is not fit for purpose for whistleblowing cases - data suggests majority of claimants will lose. This is not a surprise given how biased the judges are in favour of the Respondent in my observation - this was also noted by all others who were present at the hearing. Lets hope the EAT judges are of much higher calibre, fair and take 2 sides of the story in consideration; the claimants and the Respondent's.
Claim your business profile now and gain access to all features and respond to customer reviews.
