This page is dedicated to Freedom of Information requests about Ms Nicola Daly, who is extremely secretive while exercising definitive negative power over appeals at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Ms Daly’s full name is possibly Nicola Suzanne Batten Daly, and she serves as the Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Before I made this information request, I had a long history of Ms Daly exercising retaliation towards me during my appeals. I am certainly not the only one who has experienced injustice because of her interference with judges’ decisions, as well as the decisions she made herself about sometimes simple matters. Even when the subject matter was a necessary remote hearing instead of an in-person hearing at a time when I lost my mother, she refused my requests.
As I have mentioned on other pages, the judgements that have been published online and those that contain serious negative inaccuracies about me, as well as omissions that protect two sets of employers who have lied, forged documents, and used the authorities to harass me for a few years now. The more I tried to correct the inaccuracies, the more they produced. I don’t believe the judges or Ms Daly wouldn’t guess how this affects my life and the serious consequences it produces. I believe they quite enjoy it because I dared to criticise them. It is like the Emperor’s New Clothes – you can’t mention the obvious about the judiciary.
To be honest, my criticism or exposing some of the lies judges embedded in judgments is just a useful excuse because they started the dishonesty long before I said anything, with the first claim against Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths. The justice system in the UK is in ruins – unfortunately, it may be a global problem to differing degrees in each country – and it is used to exploit some people for the benefit of others.
The public, of course, has a right to scrutinise the justice system and the people who are supposed to administer justice. When you look at the online employment judgements, you will see incredibly private information about claimants and sometimes even about people who just happened to be mentioned or sent WhatsApp messages to a party. Judgments contain email addresses, phone numbers, and sensitive information or allegations about unrelated parties. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) claims decisions are exempt from GDPR rules and cannot be removed from GOV.UK.
Just look below and see how the MoJ responds when you ask about the professional credentials of someone who is involved in the creation of this mess. By the way, Ms Daly doesn’t reveal her first name in any correspondence, and I found out her name through a Freedom of Information request a while ago. The response to my request was defensive and stated that her name was buried in a paragraph in a large document. I believe the team tells the person about FOI requests about them, and that particular response seemed to have been prepared by Ms Daly herself. Someone else would just provide the information and wouldn’t know where her first name was stated in a huge document.
In the last few years, I have made several Freedom of Information requests to find out about Ms Nicola Daly’s credentials and professional experience. So far, I haven’t even been able to confirm her full name, which I believe to be Nicola Suzanne Batten Daly.
Attached above is the response to my second FOI request (Ms Cetin FOI request 28 March 2024.pdf, redacted). As you can see, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is neither confirming nor denying that they hold the information I requested. Considering that I was asking for basic information about the Registrar, which the MoJ is required to hold, this response is obviously dishonest.
In the next paragraph, they reveal the true reason why this information is not being provided: “FOI is a public disclosure regime, not a private one. This means any information disclosed under the FOIA by definition becomes available to the wider public.” My reaction to this is, why be so secretive about her education and experiences? She is a publicly paid civil servant who makes quasi-judicial decisions every day, and the information I’m requesting is about her professional life. She holds an important role in managing the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The secrecy surrounding Ms Daly’s professional background is concerning, especially given her influential position. As a public servant, there should be a certain level of transparency about her qualifications and experience. The MoJ’s reluctance to provide even basic information raises questions about their commitment to accountability and the public’s right to know about those in positions of power within the legal system.
In my pursuit of transparency and accountability, I made another Freedom of Information (FOI) request through the “What Do They Know” website. The response I received from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is even more concerning than the previous one.
In this latest request, I sought confirmation of the Registrar’s full name, which I believe to be Nicola Suzanne Batten Daly, as well as information about her salary, educational background, professional experience, and the appointment process for her current role. These are all reasonable inquiries that the public has a right to know, given the Registrar’s influential position and the impact of her decisions on employment law cases.
Shockingly, the MoJ claimed that they do not hold any information within the scope of my request, stating that there is no legal or business requirement for them to do so. They suggested I contact the Judicial Office instead, as they may hold some of the requested information. Here is their response letter:
This response is deeply troubling. How can the MoJ not have basic information about the Registrar, such as her full name and professional background? It is difficult to believe that they do not hold any of this information, given the Registrar’s role within the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which falls under the MoJ’s jurisdiction.
Furthermore, it appears that the MoJ forwarded my request directly to the Registrar herself, as the response letter used my full name, even though I did not include my first name in the request. This raises serious concerns about the handling of FOI requests and the potential for bias or interference in the process.
The secrecy surrounding the Registrar’s basic professional information is unacceptable and erodes public trust in the judicial system. The public has a right to know who is making important decisions that affect their lives and whether those individuals are qualified for their roles.
I will continue to pursue this matter and explore other avenues for obtaining the requested information, including contacting the Judicial Office as suggested by the MoJ. However, the MoJ’s lack of transparency and their inability to provide even the most basic information about the Registrar is deeply concerning and must be addressed.
As citizens, we must demand accountability from our public institutions and those who hold positions of power within them. The Registrar’s role is too important to be shrouded in secrecy, and the MoJ’s handling of FOI requests on this matter raises serious questions about their commitment to transparency and the public interest.
In response to the MoJ’s unsatisfactory reply, I immediately requested an internal review of their decision. It is crucial to challenge public bodies when they fail to provide the information requested, especially when it pertains to matters of public interest and the transparency of senior officials in quasi-judicial roles.
You can view the full FOI request and the MoJ’s response on the “What Do They Know”: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/salary_qualifications_and_appoin
As I await the outcome of the internal review, I want to emphasize the importance of the public’s right to know about the qualifications and background of individuals making significant decisions that affect their lives. The secrecy surrounding the Registrar’s basic professional information is unacceptable and erodes public trust in the judicial system.
It is difficult to accept the MoJ’s claim that they do not hold any of the requested information, given the Registrar’s role within the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which falls under their jurisdiction. Furthermore, the fact that the response letter used my full name, even though I did not include my first name in the request, suggests that the request was forwarded to the Registrar herself, raising concerns about the handling of FOI requests and potential bias.
If the internal review does not yield satisfactory results, I will consider escalating the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), an independent body that oversees the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act and can investigate complaints about public bodies’ handling of FOI requests.
3rd of October 2024:
Transparency in Judicial Appointments: A Comparative View
Whilst the UK Ministry of Justice refuses to disclose even basic information about the Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), other judicial systems demonstrate that transparency is both achievable and necessary.
The European Court of Human Rights, for instance, publishes CVs and photographs of its current and former registrars on its website. This practice allows the public to scrutinise the qualifications and professional backgrounds of these crucial judicial officials.
This stands in stark contrast to the situation at the UK’s EAT. The Registrar, who makes significant daily decisions affecting employment rights and access to justice, remains shrouded in secrecy. Alarmingly, when faced with a Freedom of Information request about the Registrar’s qualifications and background, the Ministry of Justice claimed to hold no information – not even confirming the Registrar’s name. It’s believed that the Registrar herself may have penned this response, choosing not to disclose her own identity despite it being included in the original request.
This level of opacity makes it impossible for the public to assess whether individuals in these crucial roles possess the necessary qualifications and experience. Moreover, it raises serious questions about the EAT’s effectiveness in scrutinising lower tribunal decisions.
The principle that justice must be seen to be done is fundamental to maintaining public trust. As taxpayers and citizens, we have a right to know who is making these important decisions and whether they are qualified to do so. The current lack of transparency in UK judicial appointments falls far short of this standard and poses a significant obstacle to open justice and public accountability.
It’s high time for the UK to reconsider its approach to judicial transparency. Adopting practices that allow for public scrutiny of judicial officials’ qualifications would be a significant step towards restoring faith in our legal institutions.
Next: The EAT registrar’s false statement to the Ombudsman regarding my complaint about HHJ Bourne, who encouraged Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune to abuse me at a remote hearing in 2021; Justice Eady’s subsequent apology; how this matter relates to the registrar’s practice of blocking even the most obvious appeals, despite judges accepting them as valid grounds; and her apparent influence on judges.
Update – November 2024: I have now received and posted above the MOJ’s response to my internal review request. The response reveals a striking reversal of their initial position where they claimed to hold no information about the Registrar. Now, the MOJ admits they do hold information about Ms Daly, confirming she is their employee (not a judicial office holder) and that they possess details about her salary, educational background, professional experience, and appointment process.
However, the response raises even more troubling questions about transparency and accountability. Even regarding her name, the MOJ’s approach is peculiarly evasive – rather than simply confirming her full name as stated in the request, they direct readers to a website. Notably, she was previously listed merely as “N Daly” on this page until after my first FOI request, when it changed to “Nicola Daly.” More concerning still, while records at the Solicitors Regulation Authority list a “Nicola Suzanne Batten Daly,” the Registrar appears to be indirectly distancing herself from this full identity. This reluctance to confirm even basic identifying information about a public official in a quasi-judicial role is troubling.
The MOJ now refuses to disclose most information about her, citing her “valid objection” to transparency. Most remarkably, they claim that releasing her basic professional background would affect her “health and safety” – a rationale that defies logic when considering this would merely involve disclosing historical information about educational qualifications and professional experiences from years or decades ago. Such information is typically a source of professional pride and routinely made public for those in positions of public trust. The reluctance to share standard career credentials that would normally be displayed on professional profiles, combined with this apparent attempt to obscure her full identity, raises serious questions about the real basis for this extraordinary level of secrecy.
This stance makes it impossible to identify potential conflicts of interest or assess the qualifications of someone making significant decisions that shape employment law. The contrast is stark: while the EAT Registrar exercises considerable power over unrepresented claimants’ cases and their personal information becomes public record, she successfully blocks any scrutiny of her own professional credentials, citing concerns that seem disproportionate to the basic professional information being requested.
As evidenced in the letter above, Ms Daly personally objected to the release of information that would be standard public knowledge for most quasi-judicial roles. This level of secrecy stands in sharp contrast to the transparency practices of other judicial systems, such as the European Court of Human Rights (as mentioned above), where registrars’ professional backgrounds are publicly available and such transparency is seen as fundamental to maintaining public trust.
The MOJ’s position appears to protect power from accountability rather than protect legitimate privacy concerns. How can the public trust a system where those wielding significant power over workers’ lives can hide their credentials while exposing others’ personal information daily?
I have reported this concerning response to the Information Commissioner’s Office, as it exemplifies a troubling double standard where a public official can block transparency about her professional background using dubious ‘health and safety’ claims while overseeing the publication of workers’ sensitive personal information.
Double Standards in the Justice System: A Personal Account
The stark contrast between how privacy is applied within the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) deserves public scrutiny. Ms Daly, the EAT Registrar, objects to disclosing her educational and professional background citing ‘health and safety’ concerns, while being paid from public funds. Let me contrast this with my experience as an unrepresented litigant.
In 2018, I brought what should have been a straightforward employment claim. One employer, Ms Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune (also known as Melanie Griffiths), conducted an extensive unauthorised investigation into my background by misrepresenting herself as a potential employer to contact my former workplaces. She also lodged multiple false reports with the police against me and contacted my universities seeking negative information. When these actions came to light, her justifications kept changing, even inappropriately involving her children as an excuse.
Multiple tribunal judges subsequently misrepresented these events in their judgements through strategic omissions and distortions. When I attempted to correct the record, they responded by imposing peculiar anonymity orders. These orders were particularly nonsensical as they attempted to restrict disclosure of names that were already in the public domain through earlier and later judgements. This contradiction highlights their true purpose: using invalid orders as pressure tools rather than legitimate legal instruments.
It’s a matter of basic logic that one cannot effectively anonymise information that is already publicly available. Moreover, I have a fundamental right to discuss my cases, write about them, and prepare documentation about claims that are now part of multiple public judgements. The right to defend one’s reputation against judicial misrepresentations shouldn’t require legal expertise to understand – it’s a basic principle of justice.
Ms Daly’s role at the EAT has been pivotal in perpetuating these issues. She has consistently found ways to obstruct my appeals, even in cases where judges struggled to dismiss them outright. This includes appeals against permanent anonymity orders and restricted reporting orders. The public hearings revealed numerous instances of abuse that were omitted from written judgements, including name-calling and false police reports. The tribunals have systematically downplayed employer misconduct while portraying me in an unfavourable light even when I won.
The irony is stark: while my entire employment history since 2003 was included in public judgments due to Ms Mareuge-Lejeune’s unauthorised investigations and her barrister Mr Paul Wilson’s actions, Ms Daly claims ‘health and safety’ concerns to avoid basic professional scrutiny of her public role. This raises an interesting question: if Ms Daly were to bring a claim against her employer, the Ministry of Justice, would she expect to be held to the same standards she has been imposing on others for years? Would her own professional background suddenly become relevant to proceedings, just as she has allowed employers to expose litigants’ histories in detail?
The irony of the ‘health and safety’ justification becomes even more striking when we consider the real health and safety implications for litigants. While Ms Daly shields her professional credentials behind this excuse, what about the health impacts on litigants who face false police reports, unauthorised investigations into their past, and distorted judgements? What about the safety concerns of those who must defend themselves against false allegations while navigating a system that seems designed to silence them? The stress of fighting against powerful institutions, the anxiety of having one’s reputation unfairly tarnished, and the psychological toll of being portrayed as potentially dangerous in public documents – these are genuine health and safety issues that the tribunal system appears unmoved by.
The argument about judicial proceedings immunity, introduced by Mr Wilson, doesn’t apply here – a fact acknowledged by Judge Auerbach during Ms Mareuge-Lejeune’s appeal, though conspicuously absent from the written judgement.
This disparity in treatment exemplifies a troubling double standard in our justice system, where those wielding power can shield themselves from legitimate scrutiny while leaving litigants exposed to unauthorised intrusions into their private lives.
Reference: The full judgment containing my employment history can be found here.
Page 14 lists all my previous employers, demonstrating how personal information about litigants is routinely published while tribunal officials claim privacy concerns for their professional credentials.
3rd of April 2025 Update: The Smoke and Mirrors Game: MOJ’s Latest Contradiction About the Secretive EAT Registrar
The Ministry of Justice’s evasion tactics have reached new levels of absurdity in their latest response to my Freedom of Information request about the Employment Appeal Tribunal Registrar.
After previously acknowledging they held information about the Registrar’s educational qualifications and professional experience during their internal review, they’ve now performed a complete U-turn, claiming they “do not process any information relating to the Registrar’s educational and professional background.” Their justification? The information was supposedly contained in her 2017 job application, which they claim has been conveniently destroyed under a two-year retention policy.
This claim defies both logic and standard employment practices. How could the MOJ not maintain basic qualification records for a current employee in a senior legal position who makes quasi-judicial decisions daily? Even if the original application were somehow destroyed (which strains credibility for someone still employed in the same role), the MOJ would necessarily have:
- Verification records of her qualifications
- Employment references
- Security clearance documentation
- Personnel files
- Performance reviews
- Payroll records
The strategic timing of this reversal speaks volumes. Only after the Information Commissioner’s Office became involved did the MOJ suddenly “discover” they no longer possess this information. This raises serious questions: What is Ms Daly hiding? And why is the MOJ going to such extraordinary lengths to shield her from basic scrutiny?
The Pattern of Protection
This latest FOI response exists within a broader pattern of obstruction that has characterised my encounters with both the EAT and Ms Nicola Daly. The most telling aspect is the MOJ’s peculiar addition to their response: “Outside of the FOIA and on a discretionary basis, if you wish to make a complaint about handling of a tribunal case relating to you, please see: Complaints procedure…”
This unsolicited redirection reveals that Ms Daly is almost certainly directly involved in managing this FOI response, attempting to frame my legitimate information request as merely an extension of my tribunal appeals. The message is clear: your request for basic professional information about a public official isn’t valid because you have ongoing cases.
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of FOI laws, which are designed to be “applicant-blind” – the identity or motivation of the requester should be irrelevant to how a request is processed.
What Could She Be Hiding?
The extraordinary measures taken to conceal even basic professional information about Ms Daly raise profound questions about what might be hidden. This secrecy becomes even more suspicious when considering how she has handled my cases:
- She was instrumental in helping my former employer secure the removal of a published judgment that had been online for over two years. This judgment was crucial as it demonstrated their deceptive “scatter gun approach” to litigation and thoroughly undermined their credibility.
- She has consistently found ways to obstruct my appeals, even when judges initially viewed them as having merit.
- She was directly involved in the process that has neither implemented nor formally cancelled a correction order, effectively preventing me from freely discussing my own cases.
- She denied me even the most basic procedural rights, including refusing a remote hearing when I desperately needed it to participate in an important proceeding.
The parallels between Ms Daly’s secrecy and my former employer Melanie Griffith(aka Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune)’s tactics are striking. Both have obscured their full legal names in public discourse. Both seem determined to rewrite history by suppressing unfavourable facts. And both benefit from a system that protects powerful interests while exposing vulnerable individuals.
The Double Standard is Staggering
While Ms Daly claims that releasing basic information about her professional background would affect her “health and safety” (a claim the MOJ has eagerly embraced), my employment history since 2003 was included in public judgments. This occurred because my former employer used deception when requesting information about me – actions that were even characterised as “a ruse to discredit me” in tribunal proceedings.
The contrast couldn’t be clearer: tribunal officials can hide behind dubious privacy claims while ensuring ordinary litigants’ personal information becomes permanent public record – unless, of course, the litigant is someone they wish to protect. Remember, they produced a precedent specifically for my employer in her claim. Meanwhile, my judgments contain demonstrable falsehoods, yet they won’t even accept this as grounds for appeal.
The System Protects Itself
This latest FOI response reveals how the system protects its own. The wealthy employers who use litigation to silence minimum wage claims find natural allies in tribunal officials who resist transparency. Both benefit from obscurity – employers can hide their fraudulent practices, while officials can exercise power without accountability.
I have now submitted a request for internal review of this latest contradictory response and updated the Information Commissioner’s Office about this development. The fight for basic transparency continues, but one thing becomes increasingly clear: the extraordinary lengths to which the MOJ will go to protect Ms Daly from scrutiny suggests there’s something significant they don’t want the public to know.
What legitimate reason could there be for hiding the educational and professional background of someone making daily decisions that affect employment rights? The public deserves to know who is making these decisions and whether they’re qualified to do so. The continued secrecy only deepens suspicions about what might be revealed if this information were to become public.
Coordinated Efforts to Silence Legitimate Criticism
What’s become increasingly apparent is the troubling coordination between the Registrar, tribunal judges and my employers. I believe they are deliberately supporting my employers’ privacy arguments not out of legitimate legal concerns, but because the employers’ interests align with their own need for secrecy. Having discriminated against me, permitted abuse during proceedings, and embedded numerous falsehoods in judgments, they now use my employers as convenient proxies to limit my freedom of expression. This explains their remarkable dedication to upholding dubious privacy claims from my employers whilst simultaneously dismissing legitimate concerns about judicial misrepresentations.
Their bizarre attempt to signpost me towards a complaints procedure is equally telling—they expect that eventually I’ll become too exhausted or discouraged to continue pursuing transparency. It’s a war of attrition where they hold institutional power and can extend proceedings indefinitely, whilst I must fight as an individual against this collective effort to suppress the truth. The audacity of suggesting I use their internal complaints system—the very system that has repeatedly failed to address these injustices—reveals their fundamental misunderstanding of the situation or, more likely, their contempt for proper accountability. This isn’t merely about bureaucratic obstruction; it’s about systematically denying me both justice and the right to speak truthfully about my experiences.
In case you think I am exaggerating about the state of our judiciary, the systematic refusal of judicial oversight bodies to meaningfully investigate complaints against judges like Lancaster – despite mounting evidence of bullying, misogyny and degrading behavior – reveals a justice system that protects its own at the expense of vulnerable litigants, creating a culture where accountability is sacrificed on the altar of judicial immunity. Here is the link to the Good Law Project page about how they plan to challenge the failure to investigate this particular judge’s abusive behavior.
April 6, 2025: The Circular Fortress of Judicial Self-Protection
Because so much has happened over the last seven years, I can’t even remember all the extreme injustices that occurred. Today, I’ve recalled an important episode that further demonstrates the systematic problems within the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Two years ago, I actually lodged a formal complaint about the Registrar of the EAT, Ms Daly, after she refused to grant remote hearings for a preliminary hearing. Instead of receiving proper independent review, my complaint was simply returned to the EAT itself, where Ms Daly instructed a subordinate to dismiss it. This administrative sleight of hand effectively allowed her to clear herself of any wrongdoing through a convenient proxy.
What’s particularly telling about this incident is how it evolved into a relentless campaign. Following Ms Daly’s initial refusal, she appears to have coordinated with Judge Tayler and another female official (who never disclosed her position) to reject three more remote hearing applications. Each denial arrived with condescending directions to alternative procedures—a bureaucratic labyrinth designed to exhaust rather than assist. Their judgments contained demonstrable falsehoods wrapped in language that was misogynistic, discriminatory and deeply offensive.
The stark contrast in treatment is impossible to ignore. Whilst denying me this simple procedural accommodation, the same tribunal officials were simultaneously preparing unlawful orders benefiting employers who had committed documented offences against me. By all standards of proper governance, shouldn’t Ms Daly have been investigated by the president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal or someone above her position?
The Tribunal’s continued refusal to implement Judge Brown’s correction certificate from years ago reveals their true priorities. For over seven years, they have published the names of two sets of employers in their judgments on GOV.UK, whilst simultaneously harassing me for even linking to those same judgments on my own blog. This glaring contradiction exposes the true purpose of these anonymity orders—not to protect legitimate privacy interests, but to silence legitimate criticism.
The situation has become increasingly Kafkaesque, with these employers reporting me to the police with the assistance of judges who made these illogical and unlawful decisions. Meanwhile, Ms Daly and certain judges orchestrate this untenable legal situation, likely hoping I will eventually surrender and accept the numerous falsehoods about me in the official record. Most disturbingly, they continue destroying the bundles that contain evidence proving the extent of these judicial misrepresentations.
Now, by directing me to make another complaint about her (as invited in their public FOI response), they are clearly attempting to create a circular process where matters remain private and due process is systematically ignored. Their suggestion that I use their internal complaints system—the very system that has repeatedly failed to address these injustices—reveals their fundamental contempt for proper accountability.
The extraordinary lengths to which the MOJ will go to protect Ms Daly from scrutiny, while simultaneously exposing my personal information to the public record, suggests there’s something significant they don’t want revealed. This isn’t merely bureaucratic obstruction; it’s a coordinated effort between the Registrar, tribunal judges and my employers to systematically deny both justice and my right to speak truthfully about these experiences.
Their tactics assume the public lacks the discernment to recognise these contradictions—an assumption that underestimates both public intelligence and the determination of those seeking transparency in our justice system..
The ICO’s Flawed Decision
17 September 2025: Tribunal Proceedings Update
My Freedom of Information appeal against the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is progressing through the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber). A compliance hearing is scheduled for 27 November 2025, with the substantive hearing on 22 December 2025 via Cloud Video Platform.
The ICO has accepted the Ministry of Justice’s implausible claim that they hold no information about the EAT Registrar’s educational qualifications or professional experience. This decision is particularly troubling given that the MOJ initially argued they possessed this information but wouldn’t disclose it due to “health and safety” concerns. The ICO completely ignored this fundamental contradiction – how can the same information simultaneously exist (requiring safety justifications) and not exist (destroyed under retention policies)?
Revealing Documents in the Tribunal Bundle
The tribunal has ordered the ICO to prepare a bundle for the hearing, and their initial draft contains a fascinating MOJ document I hadn’t previously seen. This submission to the ICO reveals several telling points:
The Registrar personally objected to sharing her basic professional information. This raises obvious questions: what qualified professional objects to disclosing their education and experience? Such information is typically a source of pride and routinely made public for those in positions of public trust.
The MOJ argues I “target” the Registrar with Freedom of Information requests. This characterisation is both false and revealing. I have submitted dozens of FOI requests across various jurisdictions and positions as part of my student journalism investigating judicial transparency. How could a professional feel personally targeted by routine transparency requests unless they either lack appropriate qualifications or have undisclosed connections they prefer to keep hidden?
The MOJ claims that sharing this information would affect future EAT registrar recruitment. This argument defies logic – why would qualified professionals be deterred from applying for roles where basic transparency is expected? If anything, secrecy suggests the position attracts those who prefer to avoid scrutiny.
Most concerning is the personal element: how can someone in the Registrar’s position fairly adjudicate appeals from someone they view as “targeting” them? This creates an obvious conflict of interest that should disqualify her from involvement in my cases.
Attacks on Freedom of Expression
The MOJ’s submission to the ICO included pages from this blog, apparently objecting to my public criticism of tribunal officials. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of democratic principles – civil servants, particularly those in quasi-judicial roles, must expect public scrutiny and criticism. The suggestion that I shouldn’t express opinions about public officials is particularly rich coming from a system that has:
Imposed three sets of permanent anonymity and restricted reporting orders on individuals whose names appear repeatedly in published judgments on GOV.UK. The hypocrisy is stark: they argue I shouldn’t discuss my own cases whilst simultaneously ensuring my employers’ names remain in public judgments.
Published extensive personal information about me in tribunal decisions, including my complete employment history since 2003, obtained through my former employer’s unauthorised investigations.
Embedded numerous factual inaccuracies in judgments that damage my reputation, whilst refusing to implement correction orders.
The System’s Perpetuation of Harassment
Rather than ordering payment of basic employment rights in my initial claim, the system continued the proceedings so the lawyers could exploit the insurance coverage and continue crafting negative misrepresentations about me whilst protecting the employers. They simply used a basic wage claim to harass and harm me over seven years.
One set of these employers included a private banker who repeatedly argued that facts about her conduct would negatively affect her employment, as she needed to remain “fit and proper” for her banking roles. Rather than directing her to cease her illicit and dishonest behaviour, the system accommodated her concerns by helping remove a judgment that had been published for over two years. This judgment was crucial as it revealed her bad conduct during her own claim against her employer and demonstrated the employers’ deceptive “scatter gun approach” to litigation, thoroughly undermining their credibility.
The employers frequently point out that I have multiple claims, which is true – except for the first minimum wage claim (which I won), all subsequent claims resulted from employer harassment during the litigation process. The courts perpetuate and facilitate this employer harassment, expecting most employees to give up at some point. When you don’t give up – because I cannot afford to – they find new ways to damage your reputation so no one will believe you when you eventually expose the truth of what happened over all these years.
The financial motivation is clear: these employers stole wages below minimum wage (though I won my minimum wage claim), yet when represented by a part-time employment judge and other lawyers, legal costs exceeded £150,000 during my claims. The system continued the claims so the lawyers could use the insurance and continue crafting negative misrepresentations about me whilst protecting the employers.
The Coordinated Campaign
The pattern of obstruction extends far beyond the Registrar’s FOI secrecy. In 2024, Judge Tayler dismissed my appeals against these absurd anonymity orders after he and the Registrar refused four remote attendance applications, making it impossible to attend my preliminary hearing. The appeal grounds had been accepted as valid – because it is indeed legal nonsense to prohibit someone from discussing their own claims whilst publishing the same information in official judgments.
These employers weren’t genuinely concerned about privacy. I recently discovered that one set of these employers wrote to multiple courts – including the EAT, family court, and Attorney General – during my second claim against them. None of these institutions informed me of these communications. I only learned of this because they now demand costs from me, revealing they view the anonymity orders as revenue streams rather than privacy protection.
The financial motivation is clear: these employers stole wages below minimum wage (though I won my minimum wage claim), yet when represented by a part-time employment judge and other lawyers, legal costs exceeded £150,000 during my claims. The system continued the claims so the lawyers could use the insurance and continue crafting negative misrepresentations about me whilst protecting the employers.
Current Developments and Expectations
Judge Tayler appears extremely displeased that I observe EAT hearings as part of my journalism investigating judicial transparency. I have written to several government departments about Judge Tayler’s inappropriate conduct during my remote observation requests. Tomorrow, they will publish a judgment that I strongly suspect will contain similar misrepresentations to previous decisions. When the EAT previously published a judgment in my employer’s appeal, Judge Bourne embedded demonstrable falsehoods that portrayed the employers positively whilst damaging my reputation.
The pattern suggests coordinated efforts between the Registrar and Judge Tayler to silence legitimate criticism through judicial falsehoods. I’ve noticed many unrepresented litigants report similar experiences, and the patterns are becoming clear. It’s extraordinary that our courts prefer to operate in darkness rather than embrace transparency. The question remains: what are they hiding?
The Broader Implications
Whatever the tribunal’s ultimate decision regarding the Registrar’s qualifications, the message is already clear. The extraordinary measures taken to conceal basic professional information about a public official making quasi-judicial decisions speaks volumes about what transparency might reveal. The coordination between tribunal officials and my former employers to suppress legitimate criticism through dubious legal orders demonstrates a system more concerned with protecting powerful interests than ensuring justice.
Through this process, I’m learning how deeply compromised our court system has become – riddled with layers of actors who exploit it for the benefit of lawyers while harming the public. Judges and officials like the Registrar act as trojan horses within the system, appearing to serve justice whilst actually facilitating its subversion.
Even if the Registrar manages to convince the tribunal judge to uphold this unprecedented secrecy, the public can draw their own conclusions about what such desperate concealment suggests about her fitness for office.
Leave a Reply