The Case of RB v Kingston University
The following are relevant case documents in the matter of the unfair dismissal and victimization case of RB v Kingston University:-
Employment Tribunal Claim - Statement of Particulars (.PDF Document)
Skeleton Arguments - Employment Appeals Tribunal Hearing of 22.7.08 (.PDF)
Appendix to Employment Appeals Tribunal Appeal - Errors in the finding of fact in the Employment Tribunal Judgment (.PDF)
Response from the Employment Appeals Tribunal - 24.04.08 (.PDF)
During two Employment Appeals Tribunal hearings (17.03.06 and 28.03.07) Dr RB complained that Employment Tribunal Judge F Spencer had not treated Dr RB fairly and equitably, as stipulated by the overriding objectives, and that she had misrepresented what Dr RB had said during the Pre-Hearing Review of 04.05.05 held at the Employment Tribunal London South.
In applications submitted to HH Judge Underhill at the 28.03.07 EAT hearing, and a further application (on 12.05.07) to the Regional Chairman of the Employment Tribunals London South, Dr RB requested that Judge F Spencer not be appointed to chair the merits hearing of her claim.
Given these circumstances, why is it that Judge F Spencer was appointed to hear the merits’ hearing of Dr RB’s case?
At a hearing held on 22 July 2008 before the Employment Appeals Tribunal, Dr RB's request for a full hearing of her appeal of the Judgment of the Employment Tribunal was denied.
In her final written submission to the Employment Appeals Tribunal presented to HH Judge McMullen at the start of the hearing on 22.7.08 (see above PDF document), she posed two questions to the Employment Appeals Tribunal in order to learn how and why her understanding of the law in respect of the basis for her Application to Appeal was denied.
The purpose of that hearing was to exercise her legal right and contest the refusal of the Employment Appeals Tribunal to allow her to appeal against the 11.02.08 decision of the Employment Tribunal. His response to these questions was along the lines:
Answer to Question 1 : Judge Elias was correct in stating that the Employment Appeals Tribunal does not review facts. You (Dr RB) are also correct regarding the jurisdiction of the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the need to look at the evidence.
Answer to Question 2: I (Judge McMullen) am not prepared to give you (Dr RB) legal advice on this matter.
At the conclusion of the hearing the judge refused Dr RB permission to appeal against the 11.02.08 decision of the Employment Tribunal.
In May 2009, Dr RB's appeal to the EAT relating to Kingston University's alleged failure to make pension contributions along with her payment in lieu of notice was dismissed. Shortly thereafter, she filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights to address the wider issues associated with the process of handling her claim.
The above documents and facts are provided so that YOU can decide for yourself whether or not Dr B was treated fairly by Kingston University, by the Employment Tribunal and by the Employment Appeals Tribunal.