The Discriminatory and Unlawful Practices of UK Employment Tribunals:
This is my personal account of the unbounded discriminatory, unlawful, and illogical ways in which the United Kingdom Employment Tribunals operate. Their practices are so extreme that they ruin the lives of many. The entire justice system, and indeed most regulatory systems in this country, are harmful to the very public they are meant to serve. If you think I am exaggerating, please read this entire blog to see how numerous judges lied repeatedly, facilitated exploitation, and protected employers who acted illicitly during a small claim. They helped these employers in order to deserve the legal cover insurance money they charged the employers’ insurers.
Later, the employers involved another set of equally exploitative employers in matters and the existence of children was used to make anonymity orders while simultaneously publishing all of their names on the official GOV.UK decisions website: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions?keywords=cetin
All of these published tribunal decisions exist because two private bankers stole my wages back in 2018 and fought for years to prevent me from getting the money back while claiming their insurance was going to pay. Shockingly, they were even represented by a part-time employment judge, Judge Dawson, in my minimum wage claim against these wealthy bankers. I only recovered a small portion because Employment Judge Nicola Walker said it was “only a small amount” that they were withholding. Yes, it was a small sum for these wealthy individuals, but they thoroughly enjoyed ripping me off with the help of judges while acting unlawfully by misrepresenting themselves to all of my other former employers to get information about me that they could exploit during the litigation. They also reported me to the police numerous times simply for bringing legal claims and obtained multiple health reports in which they alleged their family members, some of whom didn’t even live in the UK, had mental illnesses. This unlawful conduct started immediately upon them receiving notification of my claim. What they said about me, themselves, and their own relatives is simply undignifying, but for them it was relevant and important for everyone to know these things until they realised others frown upon such behaviour.
These employers were so unreasonable that they even reported me to the police for bringing a claim. Their actions demonstrate an utter inability to accept responsibility for their own conduct. Instead, they tried to get others, namely the judiciary and police, to harm me. They made disgraceful false allegations about things I had supposedly “insinuated”, including that the female employer had murdered her aunt and slept with their builder. They used their own children and other people’s children in the case and demanded I be portrayed as a criminal so she could justify her illicit conduct and maintain high-paying jobs.
These people used their jobs as a reason why I shouldn’t bring a claim against them, as they felt important. They leveraged their professional positions when reporting me to the police and shared a vast amount of information in their statements. However, they threatened everyone who dared make a comment about what they themselves had said.
Despite the help of the judges, who also served these people as self-employed barristers, lying in the judgements about me and the evidence, Ms Mareuge-Lejeune (aka Melanie Griffiths) was sacked from two jobs during my claim. For the first dismissal from JP Morgan, she blamed the employment judge Nicola Walker. In a judgement dated March 2019, Judge Walker had described her actions as unreasonable and a ‘ruse’ to discredit me. The link to this judgement is: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c8b835040f0b640df4bc378/Ms_I_Cetin_-v-_Steve_Griffiths___Others_-_Case_2204788_2018_-_Full.pdf
The second dismissal was from Equiom, which apparently used the name of Scarista, and she brought a claim against them. Here is the link to her claim: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-m-griffiths-v-scarista-ltd-and-others-2204698-slash-2022
Their names appear in many variations throughout the tribunal judgments, as the judiciary changed them to whatever they wanted during the litigation. Melanie Griffiths and Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune are the same person, while Steve Griffiths, Stephen Griffiths and Stephen Derwent Griffiths all refer to the same individual.
I know it all sounds extreme, but everything is evidenced and some of it is even mentioned in the judgments themselves. However, these judgments are rife with serious lies. For example, the matters surrounding police involvement are mostly false or sometimes distorted. The judges, knowing how important these issues are, simply abandoned all integrity and lied profusely in judgments to portray me negatively, protect two sets of employers, and later justify their own negative or limited decisions.
I did actually win some of my claims because the facts of the employers’ conduct were so egregious. However, the judges still sought to harm me in the process with their falsehoods because they simply could not completely refuse my valid claims once I dared to speak out and their precious employer customers and barristers demanded it. The judges’ decisions are unlawful, not based on facts, and bring the British justice system into disrepute. Sadly, in the United Kingdom we have grown accustomed to such injustice, as recent high-profile cases like those of Andrew Malkinson, the Post Office workers, and Sue Gray demonstrate.
The root causes of the British justice system being in such dire straits warrant deeper discussion another time. As a court user, my experience has been shocking. The tribunals abused a simple wage claim to earn money for themselves and exploited their judicial positions to mistreat me. Until recently, tribunal hearings were not recorded at all, and even now not all are. They also refuse to provide transcripts to claimants even after payment. Allegedly, only one person has managed to finally obtain a transcript and this claimant asserts the transcript was severely manipulated, with the transcriber claiming inaudibility or completely mis-transcribing the words and sentences.
Why is there so much secrecy and difficulty in something as basic as obtaining a proper court record? Why not allow attendees to record hearings, provide copies, or create official video recordings? The answer seems to be that the tribunals have much to hide. If their practices came under proper scrutiny, people would be shocked at the abuse routinely inflicted upon claimants.
This culture of concealment explains why Employment Judge Quill blocked a journalist from attending one of my hearings. He then heavily distorted the evidence to falsely portray me as a criminal simply for following another judge’s orders to post a letter to the employer. Yes, you read that correctly – the employers reported me to the police for this very reason and there is a police letter stating as much. Judge Quill ignored all of this and instead discussed the supposed lack of evidence to prosecute me. It is mind-boggling that a judge can be this blatantly corrupt and callous. He then changed his mind about removing the anonymity order, despite the fact that everyone’s names have been publicly accessible online for years. He even openly used the name of one of the employers whose name is also on the anonymity order in the very same judgment in which he refused to deal with the anonymity order is no logic, integrity or adherence to law in any of this and the tribunals do not care. They create problems for the unrepresented claimants, causing years of wasted time and resources for the unrepresented claimants and public services. This behaviour teaches employers that they can get away with illicit conduct, make judges lie, and cause further harm and loss to the employee. This cycle of misconduct and judicial complicity not only undermines the integrity of the legal system but also erodes public trust in employment protections and the pursuit of workplace justice.
If you are not generating money for the legal profession as a whole and if you dare to speak out, this is the treatment you can expect in the UK. As mentioned, I am far from being the only one who has raised concerns about tribunals including lies in their judgments. It is a widespread problem, with judges seemingly fabricating details to justify unfair decisions, omitting facts to protect employers’ reputations, or deliberately causing harm to employees in order to appease employers and their lawyers. When you examine all the facts, you will understand that the fabricated anonymity orders were not for the purpose of anonymity itself, but were produced to prevent me from exposing the falsehoods in the judgements and the misconduct of the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Publishing names online in judgements which have been part of legal libraries for years, coupled with the fact that these orders were only applicable in the UK, demonstrates that the judges are behaving like ostriches. They seem to hope that people are not intelligent enough to question their decisions. There was even an anonymity order which contains no names whatsoever. This glaring omission demonstrates the lack of seriousness and attention to detail in these legal proceedings. Yet, they expect the public to obey them and fear them.
The dysfunctions in the Employment Tribunal system and broader justice system urgently need to be remedied so that they properly serve the public as intended, rather than enabling mistreatment of vulnerable claimants and litigants. Shining a light on these dark practices is a vital first step in that reform process. My story is but one of countless examples demonstrating the need for transformative change.
Above is picture of Metro newspaper dated 29th of September 2022.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/equiom-group_equiom-appoints-melanie-griffiths-as-head-activity-6767361365314179072-LvW9
https://www.facebook.com/EquiomGroup/posts/introducing-melanie-griffiths-our-new-head-of-client-solutions-joining-teamgreen/1744313172414152/
https://www.saranacpartners.com/our-people/#stephen-griffiths
Above is Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune aka Melanie Griffiths. Pic credit Facebook page of Equiom aka Scarista Ltd.
Navigating the UK Civil Justice System: A Personal Account
I’m currently preparing appeals for the Court of Appeal after the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) denied my requests for remote hearings, despite timely applications and accepted appeal grounds. This feels like a deliberate attempt to obstruct access to justice, as remote hearings are common and cost-effective in other jurisdictions.
Recently, I observed a hearing in another jurisdiction and was struck by the civility displayed—a stark contrast to my experiences in employment tribunals. The difference was palpable, possibly due to the presence of observers and represented parties. The absence of the condescending tone often used against unrepresented claimants was refreshing.
This preparation process has highlighted the extent of mistreatment I’ve faced from employers, aided by legal professionals. The tactics employed by tribunals are so numerous, I could write a book titled “1001 Tricks of Employment Tribunals.” These tactics extend beyond procedural maneuvers to cover up questionable conduct by employers and judges alike.
The issue of anonymity and restrictive reporting orders is particularly troubling and inconsistent. In my own claims, I encountered two sets of such orders. One set had no names on them whatsoever, while the second included a long list of names, even extending to the employers’ accountants. This inconsistency raises serious questions about the purpose and implementation of these orders. How can a system simultaneously publish names while maintaining anonymity orders? It’s a paradox that undermines the credibility of the process.
It appears that logic, sense, and law are luxuries reserved for employers backed by generous legal insurance with exception of occasional show claim. Meanwhile, claimants are treated as mere bait in a system that seems designed to benefit legal professionals and part-time judges at the expense of justice. The arbitrary application of anonymity orders is just one example of how the system can be manipulated to obscure rather than reveal the truth.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal currently contributes to the injustice in the country by fabricating reasons to refuse appeals and to deny public access to hearings. They are incredibly difficult to deal with. For example, a couple of years ago, I was going to observe hearings in the physical building and was told that the hearings had been turned into remote and I wasn’t allowed a link to observe. But when we want to observe, I was told I have to go the building. I know claimants who were refused an in-person hearing because that was what they needed, whereas I am always denied a remote hearing in my claims unless the judge wants to work from home.
Recently, when I wanted a link to observe a hearing, I didn’t even get an email from them. Another unnecessary practice is that judges prepare long orders to allow you to observe after asking you many intrusive questions. That is not the case in other jurisdictions. Why are we paying judges to prepare orders for such trivial things?
There is no open justice in the UK; it’s all a farce. The employment tribunals and the EAT, as an extension of it, are trying to keep this secrecy continuing as long as possible while abusing the claimants behind doors and publishing judgments full of lies about claimants to appease employers. Money for lawyers is the reason for all this injustice.
2nd of December 2024
*This is the first article in an investigative series examining judicial conduct in British courts. Each piece will focus on specific judges whose actions highlight the growing disconnect between public pronouncements about open justice and the reality faced by litigants. Through documented cases and evidence, this series aims to expose how some members of the judiciary may be failing to uphold the principles they claim to champion.*
Who guards the Guardians? No 1 HHJ James Tayler: The Case for Greater Judicial Transparency in Britain: Rhetoric vs Reality
*When judges champion open justice in the spotlight but practise secrecy in the shadows: My experience with judicial contradiction*
“Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done” – unless, it seems, you’re challenging employers with a generous legal cover insurance.
In medieval England, local residents were required to attend court sessions as observers. This was actually a civic duty and people who didn’t attend were punished, including losing legal rights and privileges or being declared to be in contempt of court. The contrast with today’s system is striking. Attending a court hearing is now quite challenging, with court officials creating numerous barriers including moving hearings to remote at the last minute or vice versa.
Some court hearings, especially employment tribunals, did not record hearings at all and have only recently started claiming some hearings are recorded – yet getting a transcript is close to impossible. The few people who have managed to get transcripts allege they don’t match what was actually said, with many blank spaces where transcribers claim inaudibility. In this era of technology, this refusal of proper record-keeping is both implausible and unacceptable.
My personal experience suggests judges do not want to be observed because they do not apply the law to the facts, and the online judgements are full of misrepresentations. For example, Employment Judge Quill blocked a journalist from attending a hearing after asking her some basic questions, presumably because he didn’t consider her important enough. He then went on to misrepresent facts around something very important in the judgement – he claimed there was not enough evidence to prosecute me when an employer reported me to the police for sending them a court-directed letter. This effectively portrayed me as possibly having acted criminally when in fact the employers were using the police and the courts to harass me. When no one is watching, a victim can be easily made to look as if they’ve done wrong. Obviously, a judge is a person who is entrusted, and no one would expect them to misrepresent facts in a published judgement. This is one way how British judges victimise employees in this country.In my case, because I tried to set the record straight, they also produced anonymity and restricted reporting orders to stop me correcting the numerous lies and omissions in the online judgements. The names of these employers have been published online for years which obviously makes these orders futile. The same judiciary refused to include my name in the orders so I would be harmed by the lies while being kept unable to correct them. Considering these orders have criminal and financial consequences, imagine how egregious this conduct is. These orders even mention the employers’ companies and accountants but not the names of the children the judiciary pretends these orders are produced for.
In an era where transparency is increasingly expected of public institutions, my experience with the British judiciary reveals troubling inconsistencies between published precedent and practical application. A stark example of this emerged in the contrast between His Honour Judge Tayler’s March 2022 landmark ruling in Guardian News & Media Limited v Rozanov [2022] EAT 12 and his May 2024 approach to my cases involving wage theft and employer misconduct.
When my four appeals came in front of him – two appeals for each set of employers which the Employment Appeal Tribunal listed together – they made it impossible for me to attend by repeatedly refusing my applications for a remote hearing. Two of these appeals were about anonymity/restrictive reporting orders and a correction certificate Employment Judge Brown produced to anonymise the name of an employer after the name had been included in a judgement for 18 months. All names on these orders have been published online as part of judgements by the tribunals for years and the correction certificate was not implemented. It would look to anyone with logic that these orders are unlawful and should be dissolved, but -after accepting the grounds of appeal on paper- EAT refused to look at the merits of the appeals by making it impossible for me to attend. HHJ Tayler produced some comments which are inherently troublesome for any logical person but especially for him because he was refusing to follow his own precedent in my appeals. Isn’t that some sort of discrimination?
The Current Landscape: Theory vs Practise
In Rozanov, HHJ Tayler forcefully upheld principles of open justice, declaring them of “overriding importance” and rejecting arguments about practical difficulties in providing documents to the media. The judgement established crucial precedents about transparency in employment proceedings. Yet by May 2024, when dealing with my cases involving wage theft and employer misconduct, these same principles appeared to be applied quite differently.
“The open justice principle is of overriding importance” – HHJ Tayler declared in Rozanov, March 2022. By May 2024, this principle seemed forgotten in my cases.
This contradiction is particularly evident in my cases where employers violated minimum wage laws. In one instance, an employer fraudulently reduced my wages below the minimum wage and then misrepresented herself to my former employers while gathering information to use against me. This employer made multiple police reports against me, which I found out later on. They also reported me to the police together with another set of employers who had also withheld minimum wage payments from me, demonstrating a pattern of wealthy employers exploiting workers and then using legal processes to intimidate us when challenged. All in all, these people reported me to the police dozens of times, and the latter set of employers managed to get me questioned by the police about petty matters – i.e., sending them a letter under the direction of a judge and how I knew they had five children. These are petty and ridiculous reasons to report someone to the police and a waste of police resources. You would think any judge could easily see that they were being used as harassment tools. The British judges misrepresented some of the reasons why they had reported me, on one occasion why the police contacted me, and omitted the proper explanations to create stigma about me.
Why are the judges so keen to misrepresent the facts and refuse to apply the law?
The Complex Web of Legal Representation
The landscape becomes more complex when examining the role of legal representatives who serve dual functions within the system. James Dawson, a part-time employment judge at the time and full time now, represented the first set of employers in my minimum wage claim which was heard in 2018. Meanwhile, barrister Paul Wilson, representing the employers in my subsequent harassment case (where the same employers had reported me to police dozens of times for bringing a wage claim), included an employer’s name in his skeleton argument when he listed all of my former employers these employers had misrepresented themselves to during the litigation in an attempt to find information to use against me.
At this stage, the employer Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune aka Griffiths was still arguing I may have lied about my employment history, and it was very important for her to get all of my former employers online in a judgement. Employment Judge Brown copied and pasted large chunks out of Wilson’s skeleton argument. This information entered the public domain through official channels, i.e., in an online judgement, demonstrating how transparency can occur through various pathways even as courts attempt to maintain restrictions. But employment judges and later Employment Appeal Tribunal refused to deal with these facts and repeated the employers’ argument of ‘who reads the judgement anyway?’ Therefore expecting me to lie about the facts in my own judgement or pretend these names are not there.
The Public Interest
The judiciary’s handling of my cases raises significant public interest concerns that go beyond individual injustices:
– The systematic exploitation of workers through minimum wage violations
– The use of legal processes and police reports to intimidate claimants
– The dual roles of legal professionals serving as both judges and representatives
– The apparent protection of wealthy employers with legal expense insurance
– The inconsistent application of open justice principles depending on media attention
When The Guardian requested documents, open justice prevailed. When I sought transparency as a vulnerable worker, the doors seemed to close.
The Rozanov Precedent vs Reality
The March 2022 Rozanov judgement established several key principles:
– The open justice principle is of “overriding importance”
– Technical difficulties cannot justify restricting access to documents
– The digital age makes document access easier
– Media access to documents after hearings is crucial for proper reporting
– Cost considerations should be minimal in the digital era
Yet by May 2024, in my cases involving serious employer misconduct and wage theft which have been proven, these principles appeared to be completely ignored. While I succeeded in proving parts of my cases, judgements reportedly contained significant misrepresentations that appeared designed to protect employers from the consequences of their actions while limiting the scope of my claims.
HHJ Tayler managed to say in decisions that are not published that having a link to my own judgements on my blog is ‘problematic’. He claimed that using the evidence to prove the inaccuracies – all of which harm me and protect the employers – is not acceptable. He also criticised me for having a screenshot of Employment Judge Sarah George which depicts her on the same page of the barrister chambers with Mr Paul Wilson.
It is against the principles of law, logic and case law to suggest I cannot even refer to my own online judgement because it contains the name of the employers while refusing to cancel the orders that pretend those orders are valid. He expects me to keep silent and pretends no one reads the judgements and no one will notice these names have been published online for years. It is an abuse of logic and law to suggest I cannot use or post the evidence that has been part of hearings and bundles numerous times in the last six years. The only explanation for all of his remarks is that he thinks I am unworthy of rule of law. It is clear that the names of these employers are online but he is trying to stop me correct the inaccuracies about me, which means I would have to accept judicial lies and give up on my most basic rights and dignity.
The Resistance to Transparency
The reluctance to establish a centralised database of judicial backgrounds is particularly troubling given that much of this information is already public, albeit scattered across various professional websites and legal directories. Many judges, particularly those serving part-time, simultaneously work as self-employed barristers and readily publish their credentials on chambers’ websites. This selective transparency – being open about credentials when seeking clients but less so when serving in public judicial roles – raises legitimate concerns about accountability.
This resistance to transparency becomes even more concerning when considered alongside the broader pattern of behaviour I’ve experienced. From the difficulty in obtaining hearing transcripts to the selective application of open justice principles, there appears to be a systematic resistance to genuine transparency and accountability.
System Reform Requirements
From my experience, the system needs reform in several key areas:
1. Creation of a centralised, searchable database of judicial officers’ backgrounds and potential conflicts
2. Consistent publication of judgements, regardless of the parties involved
3. Clear protocols for handling cases where judges have dual roles
4. Transparent processes for addressing allegations of judicial misconduct or bias
5. Equal application of open justice principles across all cases, not just those with media attention
6. Proper recording and accessible transcription of all hearings
7. Clear guidelines on the use of anonymity orders that prevent their abuse as tools of suppression
International Context
Many other jurisdictions have embraced greater transparency. The United States Federal Judiciary website provides detailed biographical information for federal judges. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom already publishes biographies of its justices, demonstrating that such transparency is both feasible and beneficial. This international context makes the resistance to transparency in employment tribunals even more difficult to justify.
Recent Developments: The Growing Pattern of Judicial Inconsistency
The contrast in HHJ Tayler’s judicial approach has become even more striking with his November 2024 ruling on accent discrimination, where he determined that commenting on or criticising someone’s foreign accent could constitute racial harassment. This judgement, which generated significant public discussion and thousands of critical comments across various platforms, represents yet another example of what appears to be situational justice.
The pattern becomes particularly concerning when viewed alongside his earlier high-profile ruling in the Maya Forstater case. His 2019 judgement in that case, which drew widespread criticism for ruling that gender-critical beliefs were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”, was ultimately overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in 2021. The overturn of such a significant decision raises serious questions about his approach to complex and sensitive cases.
His recent accent discrimination ruling perfectly exemplifies this problematic pattern. As someone who speaks English as a second/third language, I understand intimately the complex dynamics at play. While pretending not to understand someone’s accent can indeed be used as a tool of discrimination and racism, there are also genuine situations where accents can create communication challenges. This nuanced reality makes it inappropriate and potentially harmful for a judge to make such sweeping pronouncements that could affect workplace interactions and communications.
The contrast with his handling of my cases is stark. While making broad, definitive pronouncements in high-profile cases, his approach to my proceedings was marked by imprecision and troubling misrepresentations. In one particularly egregious example, he claimed that my possession of a mobile phone would put me on equal footing with a full legal team – a statement that defies both logic and legal reality. This kind of reasoning demonstrates either a worrying disconnect from reality or a deliberate attempt to justify denying proper access to justice.
The pattern becomes clearer when examining his various rulings:
- In high-profile cases that attract media attention, he appears to take bold, headline-generating positions
- In Rozanov, he championed open justice principles for major media organisations
- In cases involving vulnerable workers challenging wealthy employers, he appears comfortable with information suppression and restricted evidence use
- When dealing with my evidence of judicial misrepresentation, he labels the use of public documents as “problematic”
- He makes illogical equivalences, such as comparing mobile phone access to professional legal representation
This inconsistency has not gone unnoticed by the public. The widespread criticism of his judgements on platforms ranging from news sites to Mumsnet suggests growing awareness of what appears to be performative justice – decisions that seem designed more for public consumption than consistent application of legal principles. The overturning of his Forstater decision particularly undermined confidence in his handling of significant cases.
The accent discrimination ruling, while addressing a genuine issue, cannot be viewed in isolation. When placed alongside his other decisions, including those in my case and the overturned Forstater judgement, it reveals a troubling pattern: justice that varies based on media attention and public scrutiny rather than consistent legal principles. His tendency to make sweeping pronouncements in high-profile cases while displaying concerning imprecision in others suggests a judiciary more concerned with headlines than careful application of the law.
This selective application of legal protection – expansive in headline-grabbing cases but restrictive in cases challenging systemic exploitation – undermines the very foundation of equal justice under law. The contrast between his precise, media-friendly pronouncements and his casual dismissal of serious concerns in less prominent cases raises fundamental questions about the consistency and reliability of his judicial approach.
Conclusion
The contrast between HHJ Tayler’s published Rozanov ruling and his May 2024 handling of my cases involving wage theft and employer misconduct reveals a troubling gap between judicial rhetoric and practise. When a major newspaper sought documents, the principles of open justice were robustly upheld. However, in my cases involving vulnerable workers facing powerful employers, these same principles were not applied.
The judiciary’s legitimacy rests not just on the quality of its decisions but on public confidence in its integrity and consistent application of principles. My experience suggests that this confidence is being undermined by inconsistent application of open justice principles, selective transparency, and what appears to be systematic protection of powerful interests at the expense of vulnerable workers.
The gap between judicial rhetoric and reality threatens public confidence in our courts. Open justice must apply equally – not just when newspapers are watching but when ordinary workers like me seek justice against powerful employers. The medieval practise of requiring public attendance at court hearings may seem archaic, but its underlying principle – that justice must be seen to be done – remains as vital as ever.
The question remains: Is open justice truly open, or does it depend on who’s watching? My experience suggests the latter, and this must change if we are to maintain any meaningful notion of justice in our employment tribunal system.
8th of December 2024:
Look at the page below and see how egregious HHJ Tayler’s handling of my claims has been:
The tribunal judges’ attempts to impose anonymity orders now, when these names have been public record for years through official court judgments, is like trying to close the barn door after the horses have long since bolted – an exercise in futility that serves only to highlight their desperation to suppress legitimate criticism. Here is a link to one of the articles about his accent ruling with four thousand negative comments:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/telling-someone-foreign-accent-t-150028074.html
***
The following article reinforces my personal experiences with judicial conduct across different jurisdictions, particularly regarding judges’ resistance to scrutiny and selective application of law. While this resistance is especially evident in family courts, I’ve observed similar behaviour in employment tribunals. For instance, during my employment tribunal hearing in April 2023, Judge Quill exhibited concerning conduct – first blocking a journalist from attending the hearing, and then proceeding to egregiously misrepresent the evidence in his written judgement, having ensured there would be no independent press coverage of the proceedings. He also downplayed the employer’s admitted victimisation and made inappropriate comments during the hearing.
A crucial distinction is that family court proceedings are recorded, allowing participants to obtain transcripts as evidence of what transpired. In contrast, employment tribunal hearings rarely have official recordings, creating a concerning lack of accountability. Employment tribunals can be particularly challenging environments, as participants often face aggressive behaviour from employers, their legal representatives, and sometimes the judges themselves.
The consequences can be severe. I’m aware of two cases where NHS medical specialists from ethnic minority backgrounds were imprisoned based primarily on judicial testimony. Given my experiences with judicial conduct, I have serious concerns about the reliability of the evidence in these cases. These experiences have fundamentally eroded my confidence in the judicial system.
19th December 2024: The Judge Tayler mentioned above is the most recent judge I’ve had to deal with. I began with him because he seems particularly keen to prevent me from telling this story, attempting to convince me that public judgements and public hearings should somehow remain secret. As I’ve stated numerous times, the judgements are riddled with falsehoods, and the tribunals have facilitated two sets of employers in exploiting me whilst enabling their continued harassment over the years. Their conduct has been so egregious that they’re now attempting to hide behind these unlawful arguments. Before delving further into each judge’s role in this saga, I must return to the beginning to explain how this messy story began. Below is a rough chronology that I’ll revisit in detail later, examining how each judge’s decisions contributed to this deplorable situation.
Chronology:
14/11/2016 – 23/06/2017: Ilkay Cetin’s employment with Respondents A Ltd and Mr B.C. She called NSPCC with child welfare concerns in May 2017 because of Mr BC’s conduct. He was incorrectly referred to as Mr DE in the second claim orders and judgments.
04/12/2017 – 02/05/2018: Ilkay Cetin’s employment with Respondents Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths and Stephen Derwent Griffiths.
23/05/2018: Mr Griffiths emailed Ilkay Cetin incorrect “revised” payslips.
25/05/2018: Ilkay Cetin emailed A Ltd and Mr B.C. about wage discrepancies discovered while investigating the revised and incorrect payslips Mr Griffiths had sent after her resignation.
29/05/2018: Ilkay Cetin filed the first claim against Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths and Stephen Derwent Griffiths for wage deductions.
07/08/2018: Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths reported Ilkay Cetin to the Police and obtained a medical letter to strike out Ilkay Cetin’s claim.
08/08/2018: Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths contacted all of Ilkay Cetin’s former employers, misrepresenting herself as a prospective employer and specifically asking for negative information.
21/08/2018: Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths’ representatives applied to strike out the claim, submitting the first medical letter containing sensitive information.
24/03/2018: London Central Tribunal limited Ilkay Cetin’s claim to “wage only” without providing decision-maker information or the right to appeal.
18/10/2018: A defamatory ‘letter’ or ‘statement’ allegedly written by a former employer appeared in Ilkay Cetin’s pay claim bundle against Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths and Stephen Derwent Griffiths. An additional ‘reference’ from the London Borough of Islington, which Ms Mareuge-Lejeune obtained through misrepresentation, was also included. Several other references she obtained through misrepresentation were deliberately excluded from the bundle the employers’ representatives prepared as they were too favourable.
30/10/2018: Suspecting the authenticity of the letter, Ilkay Cetin made a Subject Access Request to A Ltd and Mr B.C. to verify its origin.
28/11/2018: Final hearing for the claim against Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths, represented by Mr James Dawson (part-time Employment Judge at the time).
07/01/2018 onwards: Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths began making false allegations to the Police about Ilkay Cetin, initially claiming harassment for bringing a wage claim. She later collaborated with Mr B.C. and Mr D.E., after which both sets of employers continued reporting Ilkay Cetin to the Police with an escalating range of false allegations. These evolved to include dozens of different claims, particularly targeting the blog that Ilkay Cetin had started in response to discovering their false allegations and persistent harmful behaviour. Ms Cetin found out about the police reports when Ms Mareuge-Lejeune proudly admitted to it in a reconsideration application in November of 2019.
30/11/2018: Ilkay Cetin complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about A Ltd and Mr B.C.’s inadequate response to her Subject Access Request. Instead of confirming whether they had written the letter that is now largely reproduced in a judgment, they merely sent duplicate copies of some payslips. They also obstructed the request by making unreasonable demands, including requiring a wet signature and providing a false address for correspondence.
10/01/2019: Employment Judge Walker allowed £296 of Ilkay Cetin’s unpaid wages claim against Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths, deducting accommodation offset despite the contract stating accommodation was free. The correct amount owed was £800-£900.
February 2019: Ilkay Cetin requested HMRC Minimum Wage department investigate complaints against A Ltd and Mr B.C.
May 2019: A Ltd and Mr B.C. partially responded to the Subject Access Request. HMRC awarded only a fraction of the owed wages and withheld appeal information from Ilkay Cetin. It later emerged that Mr B.C. worked for HMRC himself, and despite this connection, HMRC failed to address that he had incorrectly classified Ilkay Cetin as a personal assistant when she had actually been employed as a childcare worker. HMRC also wrongly applied accommodation offset deductions despite her contract clearly stating accommodation was provided free of charge, and ignored evidence showing unpaid working hours. This misclassification appeared to facilitate the fraudulent claiming of her salary as a company expense.
August 2019: Employment Judge Walker awarded Ilkay Cetin £507 in costs against Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths and Stephen Derwent Griffiths, describing Ms Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths’ conduct as a ruse to discredit Ilkay Cetin and unreasonable. Despite acknowledging this misconduct, the Judge addressed only one of the illicit references Ms Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths had obtained. The awarded amount fell significantly short of Ilkay Cetin’s actual expenses, which included £3,500 in solicitor’s fees incurred after these employers had threatened her with costs.
August 2019: Employment Judge Walker awarded Ilkay Cetin £507 in costs against Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths and Stephen Derwent Griffiths, describing Ms Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths’ conduct as a ruse to discredit Ilkay Cetin and unreasonable. Her unreasonable behaviour included submitting multiple medical letters and costs letters, falsely attributing her own statements to Ilkay Cetin, and demanding £40,000 in costs by claiming distress over the minimum wage claim. She also repeatedly attacked Ms Cetin’s professional credentials as an interpreter, falsely claiming she had not provided a translation while simultaneously demanding £80 for repeat translations of the same document – a contradiction she used to mock Ms Cetin throughout the proceedings. Despite acknowledging this pattern of misconduct, the Judge addressed only one of the illicit references Ms Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths had obtained. At this stage, Ms Cetin was unaware that Ms Mareuge-Lejeune had been making false reports about her to the Police. awarded amount fell significantly short of Ilkay Cetin’s actual expenses, which included £3,500 in solicitor’s fees incurred after these employers had threatened her with costs.
01/11/2019: Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths and Stephen Derwent Griffiths applied for reconsideration of the costs judgement, admitting to reporting Ilkay Cetin to the Police and using child-related proceedings case file information from Mr B.C. and Mr D.E.’s family court case.
12/11/2019: Ilkay Cetin filed the first claim against A Ltd and Mr B.C.
28/11/2019: Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths filed a late appeal against liability and an in-time appeal against costs.
15/01/2020: Ilkay Cetin started a blog due to concerns about ongoing false allegations and errors in published judgements. Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths reported Ilkay Cetin to the Police the same day.
21/01/2020: Ilkay Cetin brought a new claim against Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths and Stephen Derwent Griffiths.
15/04/2020: A Ltd, Mr B.C., and Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths reported Ilkay Cetin to the Police for alleged harassment related to the Tribunal claim.
04/06/2020: Ilkay Cetin attended a voluntary Police interview which revealed that A Ltd and Mr B.C. had misled the Police by denying knowledge of both a court-ordered letter from her and her email informing them of the court order.
27/11/2020: First Preliminary Hearing in the claim against A Ltd and Mr B.C. Employment Judge George accepted some of Ilkay Cetin’s claims. Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths reported Ilkay Cetin to the Police again during the remote hearing.
01/12/2020: Employment Judge George asked parties about the necessity of anonymity orders. Ilkay Cetin supported an order to protect the children, but the employers objected to Ilkay Cetin being anonymised.
May 2020 to June 2021: Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths and Stephen Derwent Griffiths’ solicitors failed to engage with the litigation and comply with Tribunal orders, resulting in postponements and detrimental untruths in written decisions and judgements.
03/06/2021: Second Preliminary Hearing in the claim against A Ltd and Mr B.C. Anonymity and restricted reporting orders initiated by Employment Judge George. Ilkay Cetin’s claims struck out. Respondents did not provide the information Employment Judge George asked them in order for her to prepare the rule 50 orders properly. Instead of ordering them to provide the information, Employment Judge George prepared rule 50 orders with no names on them.
10/06/2021: Preliminary Hearing for Ilkay Cetin’s claim against Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths at Central Employment Tribunal. The judgment incorporated paragraphs directly copied from the employers’ skeleton arguments, including references to Mr D.E. (who was also later referred to as Mr B.C. in subsequent judgments).
07/2021: A Ltd and Mr B.C. applied for costs, claiming Ilkay Cetin had no right to have a link to the judgement in her claim against Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths on her blog.
December 2021: During judicial mediation, Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths made false allegations, offered to refrain from contacting Ilkay Cetin’s future employers if she signed a non disclosure agreement, and threatened to report her to the Police. They were represented by Mr Paul Wilson who had been Judge Sarah George’s colleague when she was a part time barrister.
16/12/2021: Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths made a secret restricted reporting order application, alleging the disclosed Police report refers to Ms Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths losing her job and that she didn’t want this mentioned. The application was ignored by the Tribunal.
January 2022: Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths and Stephen Derwent Griffiths applied to amend their defence with false statements about Police reports.
25/05/2022: Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths’ witness statement revealed extensive false allegations and Police reports against Ilkay Cetin, containing racist remarks.
13-16/06/2022: Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths divulged new information and made fresh allegations during a liability hearing at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
21/06/2022: A Ltd and Mr B.C.’s preparation time order application heard by Employment Judge George at Watford Employment Tribunal. Costs awarded against Ilkay Cetin for approaching the Family Court with concerns about Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths’ false statements, for using legal words the Employment Judge didn’t like when describing her claims, and based on non-existent previous ‘warnings’.
August 2022: Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths was dismissed from another banking job and brought a claim against her employer at London Central. The judgement was published on GOV.UK at the beginning of September, and articles about her case were published worldwide. Her claim details are 2204698/2022, Ms M Griffiths v 1. Scarista Ltd, 2. KKR Private Credit Opportunities Partners LP, 3. Alcentra Ltd.
September 2022: Ilkay Cetin filed a new claim against A Ltd and Mr B.C.
28/09/2022: Ilkay Cetin’s claim against Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths and Stephen Derwent Griffiths was widely reported worldwide in more than twenty online newspapers and in print.
10/01/2023: Employment Judge Brown from London Central Tribunal sent a new ‘corrected’ copy of the Preliminary Hearing judgement dated June 2021 regarding the claim 2200219/2020 Ms I Cetin vs M Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths and S Griffiths. The decision was made to anonymise a former employer’s name in the judgement after it had been published online for nearly two years. Employment Judge Brown offered to reconsider her decision but later abandoned the process and refused to explain why she attempted to anonymise his name after such a long time. The judgement has not been changed online and is still published as it was sent to the parties in June 2021.
16/01/2023: Employment Judge Quill decided there were insufficient grounds for making Anonymity and Restricted Reporting orders on the second claim (3311537/2022) against Mr B.C., Mr D.E., and A Ltd.
31/01/2023: Employment Judge Foxwell (Regional Employment Judge for Watford Employment Tribunal) sent out new Anonymity and Restricted Reporting orders dated 27/01/2023, with no reasons provided. There is a long list of names subject to these orders, including company names, accountants’ names, and all versions of both sets of employers’ names. The names of children of both employers and Ilkay Cetin’s name are excluded from these orders.
26/03/2023: Ilkay Cetin appealed against Employment Judge Brown’s decision.
12/03/2023: Ilkay Cetin appealed Employment Judge Foxwell’s orders under Rule 50.
16/03/2023: After numerous requests by Ilkay Cetin, written reasons for the new Rule 50 orders were provided, signed by Employment Judge Foxwell. His main reason was that Judge Brown had produced a correction certificate to anonymise Mr DE’s name (he was confused about who Mr DE and Mr BC were). Judge Brown’s certificate was not implemented at any stage. This new order also added the names of other people whose names have been published on numerous judgments.
April 2023: Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths continued to make derogatory false allegations against Ilkay Cetin at an Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing, which were ignored by the Judge.
17/04/2023: At a preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Quill struck out the new claims against A Ltd and Mr B.C. Employment Judge Quill refused to allow a journalist to observe the hearing, effectively making it a private hearing. He was abusive towards Ilkay Cetin and invited the employer to make a costs application.
27/12/2023: The Police sent a letter to Ilkay Cetin inviting her for a voluntary interview because Mr B.C. and Mr D.E. made false allegations of ‘malicious communications and a breach of order’. Ilkay Cetin attended an interview which made it clear that they had lied to the Police again to convince them to interview Ilkay Cetin. They apparently told the Police that Ilkay Cetin shouldn’t know that they now have five children, despite the fact that this information was already known and had been discussed at the hearings. It was clear that Ilkay Cetin had not communicated with them at all.
08/03/2024 – to date: Mr D.E. and Mr B.C. completed a form under Ilkay Cetin’s name and submitted it to Oxford County Court to start enforcement against her regarding the costs Employment Judge George awarded against Ilkay Cetin. The form falsely alleged on a statement of truth that there were no ongoing appeals or other proceedings in relation to this matter. The Oxford County Court failed to check their identities and awarded Ilkay Cetin costs against them. Despite this order, the Respondents managed to get a writ of control and used enforcement to argue they did not need a county court order while including the costs of the application they had fraudulently made in the enforcement.
The Price of Justice: How Employment Tribunal Judges Protected Wealthy Employers Through Coordinated Misconduct
At the beginning of this post, I exposed how numerous judges made repeated false statements in my case. My journey began in 2018 with what should have been a straightforward wage claim. I received official correspondence confirming it would be processed as a wage-only claim, and it was indeed listed as such. Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths owed me approximately £800-900, but instead of paying this modest sum, they launched an outright war against me. They retained a barrister who was also a part-time judge, whilst their solicitors misrepresented the law to me – as later mentioned in a judgment – in an attempt to pressure me into withdrawing my claim. Protected by legal expenses insurance that meant they wouldn’t pay a penny themselves, their lawyers deliberately provided overly optimistic case assessments, knowing they could influence judicial decisions. I was forced to spend thousands of pounds defending myself against their coordinated harassment, even as they faced no financial risk themselves.
These employers readily acknowledged my excellent performance, telling everyone we ‘parted’ on excellent terms. What they conveniently omit is their promise to revise my payslips and pay what they owed when I was leaving. While all of this is thoroughly documented, you’ll never see it mentioned in any judgments because such inclusion would expose both the judges’ unfairness and reveal the fraudulent practices these employers use to cheat their employees.
Later, other judges admitted my claim should have been listed as both a breach of contract and discrimination case, yet took no action to rectify this error. Thus, even at this early stage, I was stripped of basic procedural rights, with evidence systematically ignored to favour the employer. At that point, I was unaware these people were simultaneously making false reports to the police about my claim, contacting my universities, and reaching out to all my former employers under the pretence that I was applying for jobs – all whilst submitting medical reports containing mental illness allegations about their own family members in a coordinated effort to discredit me.
I brought a case against the second set of employers after Mareuge-Lejeune’s reconsideration application submissions revealed the extent of their involvement. I had already known they provided a letter containing falsities to help the first employers, but the submissions exposed how deep their coordination went. These employers were actively helping Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths in my initial pay claim whilst themselves owing me minimum wage. Despite being wealthy, powerful businessmen, they too pretended to be vulnerable people while making profuse false reports to the police, mirroring the tactics of the first employers. Between them, these two sets of employers reported me to the police dozens of times. The judges’ persistent cover-ups effectively encouraged this behaviour, even into post-litigation periods, by covering up and lying for them in judgments.
The pattern of judicial misconduct began to escalate, particularly after Mr Paul Wilson became involved. Wilson worked with Judge Sarah George of Watford Employment Tribunal, who served as both a part-time judge and barrister. Judge George initially accepted my claim, but her position dramatically shifted after Wilson’s involvement. While Wilson represented the first set of employers, Judge George presided over my case against the second set of employers – who themselves owed me minimum wage and were openly discriminatory and abusive. Despite their evident dishonesty, she struck out this case completely, reversing her earlier acceptance of the claim – though this initial acceptance was never mentioned in subsequent judgments.
These judgments are fundamentally unlawful – they disregard proper application of the law and are riddled with lies and extremely biased language. This is particularly evident in this judgment:
Click to access Ms_I_Cetin_v_A_Limited___others_3325658.2019_Costs_Judgment.pdf
This hearing occurred just one week after my second claim against Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths – a post-employment victimisation claim where I succeeded despite being unrepresented. Wilson, who represented them, was furious about losing to an unrepresented claimant, even though it was only a partial acceptance of my claim despite overwhelming evidence. That judgment too bears his hallmarks – it contains numerous lies about me and follows his characteristically illogical structure:
Click to access Ms_I_Cetin__vs_Mrs_M_Griffiths___other.pdf
Employment tribunals are meant to be public forums, open to anyone who wishes to observe proceedings and examine evidence. However, Judge George actively worked to prevent public scrutiny by removing remote observers during part of a hearing, whilst Judge Quill blocked a journalist and attempted to remove a member of the public from the hearing. This behaviour completely contradicts the fundamental principle of open justice. The underlying evidence and proceedings should be accessible to all, yet in my case, they repeatedly denied this basic right of public access. Their actions demonstrate a calculated effort to hide the true facts of the case and protect wealthy employers from scrutiny.
The manipulation of tribunal powers is particularly evident in their contradictory approach to anonymity. They produced anonymity/restrictive reporting orders on three separate occasions, supposedly to protect parties whose names they themselves had already published in public judgments. The manipulation behind these orders became clear when Judge Quill initially stated there were not sufficient grounds for making such orders. However, this apparently displeased Wilson and Judge George, who then appears to have orchestrated involvement from Regional Judge Foxwell – someone who had no previous involvement with my claim whatsoever – presumably because his higher authority would lend more weight to the order. Later, in a remarkable contradiction, Judge Quill claimed in a judgment that these orders were necessary to protect ‘minors’, despite the fact that all names were already freely available in published tribunal judgments, including this one: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60ed50ffe90e0764d4c68b5b/Ms_I_Cetin__vs_Melanie_Mareuge-Lejeune_and_Others.pdf.
How can orders supposedly protecting anonymity serve any legitimate purpose when the same judges had already made these names public? The real purpose appears to be silencing my ability to defend myself against their false narratives. This pattern of behaviour particularly affects unrepresented female litigants, especially those from black or ethnic minority backgrounds, who find themselves facing a system that seems designed to silence them and force acceptance of false narratives in judgments.
When a claimant continues challenging their decisions, they dismiss them by complaining about a ‘claimant’s inability to accept decisions’ although they didn’t use it against me. What’s particularly troubling is how judges selectively claim to be offended when I share basic, documented facts about the case – whether about employer actions, their submissions, or their past misrepresentations. They use this alleged offense against me, while showing no concern when insurance-backed employers abuse me during litigation with their assistance.
While some say judges have enormous egos and see themselves as godlike in the UK, and that may be true to an extent, I believe this is predominantly about money. When Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune mocked and lectured Judge Bourne of Employment Appeal Tribunal in 2021, he still permitted her to abuse me during the hearing and concealed their actual submissions, which included substantial dishonesty. She complained this litigation was affecting her high-paid job unless I was made to look bad, and he obliged by producing an online judgment that described the employers’ demand that I paid for their children’s food as mere ‘family-related evidence’.
He claimed I had been hostile when in fact the employer displayed extreme racist and hostile behaviour during the hearing and during the litigation, as evidenced by the bundles. The employer repeatedly emphasised in submissions that they were prolific customers for the legal profession – these people were even represented by a part-time judge in my minimum wage claim. It’s clearly about maintaining a collective long-term interest in keeping these wealthy clients happy, to the extent that Bourne would accept being mocked.
All of this represents an enormous waste of both public resources and my personal time and money. The court system has been used not in pursuit of justice, but to enable these employers to continue their harassment long after my employment ended. From the beginning, they were obsessed with my finances and possible assets, using costs threats as a weapon of intimidation over what began as a simple minimum wage claim. I’ve been forced to spend thousands of pounds defending myself against their coordinated attacks. The goal appears to be wearing down unrepresented litigants, particularly minority women, until they give up defending their reputation and accept the lies written about them in judgments. The pattern is clear – the more you fight against their false narratives, the more resources they deploy to silence you.
I’ve actually won all of my cases that weren’t struck out, but the judges who made those decisions still embedded lies in their judgments, apparently believing it easier to pass falsehoods when granting a partial win. I had every right to respect the judges as I respect our justice system, but my current opinion is that it’s riddled with corruption. While I agree the justice system should be independent, this notion of independence cannot be used to shield this level of corruption. Does independence mean they can lie to this extent, abuse their position, and escape accountability?
HHJ Tayler of Employment Appeal Tribunal discussed a picture of a judge in one of his unpublished decisions, presenting it as if I had done something inappropriate. He was referring to a screenshot of Judge George and barrister Paul Wilson together, taken directly from their chambers’ website – which remains online today. Why does he present it as if I cannot have it on my blog? And why does he discuss it as if I had done something outrageous? Because this picture helps expose the intimate relationships between the judiciary and private practice, and my situation exposes these connections with particular clarity. When an appeal judge behaves this way, imagine what we’re truly up against in the UK justice system.
Below is the picture from St Philip Chambers’ website showing Employment Judge Sarah George and Mr Paul Wilson. Both were involved in my employment tribunal cases as discussed above. Photo credit: St Philip Chambers website.
23rd of March 2025
Who Guards the Guardians? No.2: HHJ Keith
When Settlement Agreements Trump Public Hearings: The Troubling Griffiths v Scarista Decision
Continuing our series examining judicial transparency in Britain, we look at a recent Employment Appeal Tribunal decision that creates dangerous precedent for open justice.
A Troubling New EAT Judgment from My Former Employer
I spotted a new judgment on the Employment Appeal Tribunal website yesterday: Mrs M Griffiths v (1) Scarista Ltd (2) KKR Private Credit Opportunities Partners LP (3) Alcentra Ltd [2025] EAT 36. This ruling by His Honour Judge Keith involves my former employer Melanie Griffiths, who started this whole saga by stealing from my pay below minimum wage. It represents a troubling continuation of the pattern described in my earlier article – judges who publicly champion open justice principles while allowing those principles to be eroded in practice.
The case involves Melanie Griffiths (also known as Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune) appealing against the publication of an Employment Tribunal judgment from December 2022 that struck out her claims against the second and third respondents.
The Fundamental Logical Inconsistency
The EAT judgment contains a fundamental logical inconsistency that should trouble anyone concerned with judicial reasoning. Judge Keith accepts Griffiths’ characterisation of events without apparently verifying key facts. She claimed she withdrew all her claims in December 2022 following a settlement agreement, but the tribunal had scheduled a hearing for May 2023 to address her remaining claims. This contradiction is never addressed in the EAT judgment.
This uncritical acceptance of Griffiths’ narrative is particularly concerning given her history of misrepresenting facts to tribunals. In 2019, for instance, she claimed she was filing an appeal nine months out of time in my case because her insurance-paid representatives hadn’t given her copies of judgments. The EAT discovered from the Employment Tribunal that she had already applied for various reconsiderations – clearly contradicting her claim.
What makes this especially troubling is the stark contrast in how the Employment Appeal Tribunal typically treats claimants versus how they’ve treated Griffiths. The EAT routinely dismisses meritorious appeals daily, accepting very few of them, yet allowed this appeal despite its obvious flaws. This inconsistency strongly suggests institutional bias. The EAT often writes unfounded personal opinions about claimants in decisions, even when abuse happens right in front of them in hearings, as this employer did to me in 2021. They do this to impact ongoing parts of claims at the Employment Tribunal level. Yet here, they’re doing the exact opposite by treating Griffiths’ attempt to misrepresent facts about when the decision was made as a simple misunderstanding. This person has been involved in Employment and Employment Appeal Tribunals since 2018 and knows the system very well.
The Timeline and Public Hearings
Crucially, the EAT judgment fails to clearly address whether Judge Burns’ December 2022 decision was read out at the hearing. The timeline creates confusion about when this judgment was actually made. It was dated December 15, 2022 (the day of the hearing), but wasn’t sent to the parties until December 19. The fact that there was a reconsideration request mentioned in the proceedings suggests that Griffiths must have known the decision before her claimed withdrawal on December 18 – which raises further questions about the timing and motivation of her withdrawal. If she already knew the outcome was unfavourable before withdrawing, this suggests a strategic withdrawal to prevent publication rather than a genuine settlement.
For Griffiths to know the decision, it must have been read out at the end of the hearing, which is standard practice. As she had already applied for reconsideration, it is obvious the judgment was pronounced orally on the 15th, even though it wasn’t distributed to the parties until later. This means Judge Keith’s judgment is profoundly misleading about the basic facts of the case.
If parties knew the decision and there was even a reconsideration request, why shouldn’t the public know about it?
This timeline raises a fundamental question: once a public hearing has taken place, shouldn’t there be a public record of the outcome? The principle of open justice requires not just that hearings be open to the public, but that the decisions resulting from those hearings be publicly available. Journalists or members of the public who attended the hearing have a legitimate expectation to know the outcome.
The Dangerous Precedent
Judge Keith’s ruling creates a dangerous precedent suggesting that private settlement agreements can effectively erase the outcomes of public hearings. This fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of open justice. While parties are free to settle their disputes, such settlements should not prevent the publication of judgments resulting from hearings that have already taken place in public.
This precedent could enable litigants who anticipate unfavourable judgments to withdraw their claims at the last moment before promulgation, preventing the public from knowing the tribunal’s assessment of matters that were argued openly in court. This undermines both transparency and judicial efficiency.
What is particularly concerning is how this precedent might be weaponised against vulnerable claimants. Although Griffiths herself is a savvy and manipulative litigant who attempted to use confusion for her benefit, less experienced claimants may find themselves pressured to withdraw their claims by employers or tribunal judges who are already known to be hostile towards claimants. The precedent may have been created under the guise of accommodating Griffiths’ demands, whilst actually establishing a mechanism that undermines protections for vulnerable litigants.
Ironically, even Griffiths herself gains little practical benefit from this ruling, as the judgment remains on the public register in the UK and in online legal libraries. This suggests the EAT’s decision may serve broader institutional interests rather than genuinely addressing the concerns of any particular litigant. She will probably use this decision against HMCTS and threaten anyone who discusses the judgments that remain on GOV.UK, despite people having a perfectly legal right to discuss them and express opinions on them.
Part of a Troubling Pattern in the Judiciary
This decision isn’t happening in isolation. As I documented in my article about HHJ Tayler, there appears to be a growing disconnect between the rhetoric of open justice and its practical application in UK courts and tribunals. While judges publicly champion transparency in landmark cases like Rozanov, they sometimes apply very different standards in less high-profile matters.
Since I have been involved with the tribunals, I have seen many instances of judges creating problems in society and placing a burden on services with this kind of decision and misrepresentation in judgments. The systematic inconsistency in applying principles of open justice creates a two-tier system that undermines public confidence in the legal process.
Evidence of Judicial Protection
In Griffiths’ case, this pattern of eroding open justice principles is particularly troubling. This goes far beyond merely accommodating a persistent complainant – she has received extraordinary protection from the judicial system itself. The published judgments in my wage theft case contain numerous demonstrable inaccuracies, yet Griffiths has systematically attempted to prevent me from highlighting these falsehoods by advancing the remarkable claim that employment tribunal proceedings should somehow be treated as private matters. Her efforts to silence legitimate discussion reached such extremes that she actually reported me to the police for discussing my own litigation experiences on my blog, falsely asserting that employment appeal tribunal decisions constitute private information despite their publication on the official government website. She even argued I was breaking the law by posting previous EAT sift letters on my blog which showed her lies about the history of the litigation and her illicit conduct when she misrepresented herself as a prospective employer to one of my employers (out of a long list she had contacted) of my former employers to gather information during my claim.
These attempts at silencing criticism appear to be part of a broader pattern of manipulation. Griffiths complained back in 2018 after the tribunal had accepted my first claim and wanted to be paid compensation. The tribunal had already unfairly limited my claims to a simple pay claim of under £1000. They had promised to revise my payslips to pay what was owed to me, but they refused to pay and launched this war on me which included contacting my former employers and posing as a prospective employer to get information about me, reporting me to the police, and contacting my universities. These are acts of victimisation and involve the use of misrepresentations and illicit actions.
A One-Person Crusade with Judicial Support
What we’re witnessing appears to be nothing less than a one-person crusade against fundamental principles of open justice, with concerning levels of judicial support behind her efforts. This judicial backing may stem from a deeper institutional preference – after all, when tribunal decisions aren’t based on accurate representations of facts, there’s a natural institutional resistance to public scrutiny. The judiciary’s apparent willingness to shield these proceedings from proper public examination suggests a systematic attempt to conceal the troubling inconsistencies and injustices that regularly occur within employment tribunals and employment appeal tribunals.
Particularly revealing is how differently Griffiths has been treated throughout the proceedings. Even as a claimant, she continues to receive protection because the tribunal system remembers her previous complaints about judgments affecting her job and her efforts to victimise me into silence. She also sent medical report after medical report to pose as a vulnerable woman. I discovered most of these tactics gradually over time, but one thing is certain: this person doesn’t stop and makes use of any advantage to harass me.
Financial considerations may also play a role – Griffiths’ insurance-funded litigation provided approximately £150,000 to various lawyers, including some who were part-time barristers with connections to the tribunal system, such as judge Dawson who represented them in my minimum wage claim against them when he was a part-time judge. These financial relationships raise questions about whether economic interests might be influencing the extraordinary protection she has received.
Griffiths has also demonstrated a pattern of misrepresentation. She argued the fact that some of her conduct during my claims was mentioned in judgments was affecting her jobs, sending a 20-page letter to the EAT claiming she was about to lose her job and giving the impression she was talking about her job at J.P. Morgan. Later, I discovered she had already been sacked from that job long ago and had started with Equiom, who apparently uses the name Scarista. All these attempts appear designed to create a method to protect and please this person, but this is an abuse of our justice system.
Barriers to Accessing Court Documents
This case also highlights the barriers ordinary citizens face when trying to access court documents. While judgments are published, obtaining the underlying claim forms (ET1) and responses (ET3) remains challenging. Without these foundational documents, it’s difficult to fully understand the inconsistencies and misrepresentations that often appear in published judgments.
Conclusion: A Step Backward for Open Justice
The Griffiths v Scarista judgment represents a troubling step backward for open justice principles in the UK. By suggesting that withdrawals and settlements can prevent the publication of judgments resulting from public hearings, the EAT has created precedent that could be exploited to shield unfavourable decisions from public scrutiny.
This ruling has essentially given Griffiths the feeling that her tribunal proceedings should have been kept private when they absolutely shouldn’t have been. The EAT has prioritised appeasing her over upholding fundamental principles of open justice.
This case, coming in the context of increasing barriers to court attendance and document access, raises serious questions about the judiciary’s commitment to transparency. While open justice is frequently celebrated in principle, cases like this suggest its practical application is increasingly under threat.
As with the contradictions I’ve documented in HHJ Tayler’s approach to open justice, this case demonstrates the growing gap between judicial rhetoric and reality when it comes to transparency in our legal system. When judges apply different standards to different litigants, or prioritise protecting certain individuals over consistent application of transparency principles, the foundation of public confidence in our legal system is undermined.
A Precedent Without Challenge
What makes this judgment particularly insidious is its clever mechanism for establishing problematic precedent while evading scrutiny. By ruling on a case where the respondents have no strategic interest in challenging the outcome, the EAT has created legal precedent that will likely go unchallenged. Scarista Ltd and the other respondents have no motivation to appeal this decision, as the underlying employment dispute has already been resolved. Meanwhile, Griffiths herself certainly won’t challenge a ruling that effectively grants her wish to control what information becomes public. This creates a perfect storm – a legally questionable precedent that undermines open justice principles will now stand unchallenged, potentially influencing future cases for years to come. The public is left with yet another judicial ruling that erodes transparency, created through a process that itself lacks transparency and accountability.
The ultimate question remains: who guards the guardians when the guardians themselves are inconsistent in upholding the principles they claim to defend?
Update: 13th August 2025
I recently discovered the email I sent to London Central Employment Tribunal requesting a link to observe Ms Griffiths’ hearing in May 2025. The hearing had been published in the cause list.
What’s particularly notable is that a final hearing took place six months after the now-removed judgment was published. This raises questions: if Ms Griffiths had withdrawn her claims in December 2022, as stated, why would a final hearing be necessary in mid-2023?
I requested the ET1 and ET3 documents from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but they refused without proper justification. To compound matters, they subsequently refused all my follow-up requests. I have substantial evidence showing that these decisions are being made by registrar Nicola Daly and merely signed on behalf of the judges.
It’s worth noting that this same registrar, Nicola Daly, seems to have personally facilitated the unprecedented removal of a judgment from the public register – the first time this has ever occurred after years of publication. This extraordinary action was taken to accommodate a private banker who argued that the findings about her conduct exposed in the judgment might affect her professional future.
Ironically, this is the exact same argument she presented numerous times over the years during my claims, while simultaneously arguing that judges should write negative things about me to justify her misconduct towards me.
Setting aside the other concerning practices I’ve observed at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, what’s clear is that this precedent appears to lack foundation in either facts or legal arguments. Instead, it seems designed to shield a particular claimant from scrutiny regarding their conduct during litigation.
Most troubling is the apparent willingness of judges and civil servants to accommodate individuals who engage in prolonged litigation, even when this involves making untruthful statements and fabricating facts. From what I can determine, this extraordinary action was taken to accommodate a private banker who argued that the judgment might affect her professional future.They seem unconcerned about the broader consequences of such conduct – both for society at large and for those who must interact with these individuals in future.
Who Guards the Guardians? No.3: Lord Justice Bean
One Piece Jigsaw Puzzle: The Highest Judge Pretends to Be Blind
When a judicial system contradicts itself in plain sight, yet refuses to acknowledge the contradiction, we must ask serious questions about access to justice. This is precisely what has happened in my ongoing employment tribunal saga, where judges uphold anonymity and restricted reporting orders whilst themselves publishing the very names they claim to protect.
The Evolution of Contradictory Orders
What began as anonymity orders with no names has bizarrely evolved into orders containing extensive lists of names – the same names that appear in publicly available judgements. Consider Lord Justice Bean’s recent judgement dated 24 March 2025, which freely uses names like “Mareuge-Lejeune” and “Stephen Derwent Griffiths” throughout his decision.
Yet this same judgement upholds orders preventing anyone from using these identical names.
How can information be simultaneously public enough for a senior judge to mention in an official judgement, yet so sensitive that I face potential police action for mentioning it? This isn’t merely an inconsistency – it’s a fundamental contradiction that undermines the entire purpose of these orders.
The Unimplemented Correction Order
The absurdity deepens when we examine the case of the employers, whose name appears in tribunal judgements. Judge Brown was compelled to issue a correction certificate to anonymise one particular name – acknowledging that it should not be public. Yet remarkably, this correction was never implemented. The name remains visible in public documents to this day in June 2021.
Even more astounding is that the tribunal refuses to either implement the correction or set it aside. They maintain the pretence of protection whilst allowing the information to remain public – a clear demonstration that these orders serve purposes beyond their stated aim of anonymity.
What’s particularly troubling is that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had initially accepted the grounds that these names being public was a valid reason to argue the orders should be set aside. However, it appears that REJ Foxwell later influenced Judge Tayler to write a decision that I consider not only unlawful but shameless in its disregard for logical consistency.
A Web of Judicial Influence
It was REJ Foxwell himself who made this second set of permanent anonymity and restricted reporting orders based on the assertion that Judge Brown had prepared the correction certificate. It is clear he pressured her to do it. She never explained why she issued the certificate, and notably, no parties had applied for it. This occurred 18 months after the name had been published.
Foxwell appears to be behind forcing the EAT to protect orders he had made despite the tribunal previously accepting grounds for challenging them. This network of male judges acting in this way against a woman is particularly concerning, especially given that both sets of employers were involved in wage theft and used payroll fraud against me.
Silencing Through Judicial Authority
These contradictory orders aren’t merely bureaucratic curiosities – they have real consequences. REJ Foxwell provided employers with a letter explicitly encouraging them to report me to police for alleged breaches of anonymity orders, despite the protected information being available in public judgements.
When I appealed against these orders, Lord Justice Bean dismissed four separate applications in approximately 200 words of substantive reasoning, ignoring the fundamental contradictions at their core.
The pattern is clear: these orders are being wielded not to protect legitimately private information, but as tools to silence criticism of tribunal decisions and to appease employers who have successfully weaponised the judicial system.
Bias and Discrimination Laid Bare
The shameless bias against me is evident throughout the judgements. These two sets of employers have joined forces at the highest levels, with Judge Bean making particularly egregious comments that diminish my character whilst simultaneously protecting even the alleged – but never expressly stated – feelings of the employers. My evidence is consistently belittled and questioned, creating a profound imbalance in how parties are treated.
Lord Justice Bean especially commends Judge Quill, who ignored evidence from the police confirming I was following a judge’s orders when I sent a letter to employers. Instead, Judge Quill spoke about “lack of evidence” as if I had done something wrong. Would he have considered there to be sufficient evidence if I had sent two letters under a judge’s direction? This is the same judge who blocked a journalist from attending a hearing, for which he misrepresented the facts. Lord Justice Bean’s praise of Judge Quill speaks volumes about their relationship and shared approach.
If the tribunal cannot handle the straightforward matter of either not publishing names, implementing their own correction orders, or setting aside these bizarre restrictions, what hope do we have that they can be trusted with substantive claims?
It’s worth noting that my original claims were resolved back in 2018. Everything since then has involved post-employment victimisation claims arising from the extreme harassment I’ve endured from both sets of employers – harassment facilitated by the judiciary and insurance-paid barristers representing these employers.
The Human Cost
Beyond the legal principles at stake, these contradictory orders have imposed significant human costs. They prevent me from freely discussing my employment experiences. They’ve enabled false police reports against me by the employers who have always been abusive and love the opportunity to continue to do so. And they’ve forced me to expend countless hours and resources challenging irrational orders.
This isn’t merely about legal technicalities – it’s about how a system designed to protect rights can be twisted to become a mechanism for harassment when judges refuse to acknowledge obvious contradictions.
When Justice Becomes Unjust
If the highest judges in the land willingly attach their names to illogical decisions that obscure facts and commend judges who have demonstrated abusive behaviour in the past, what hope remains that this is a functioning justice system?
The one-piece jigsaw puzzle referenced in the title should be the simplest to solve – there isn’t even a jigsaw to solve, just a single contradiction that needs only to be acknowledged. Yet somehow, judges at the highest levels pretend not to see it. The contradiction is in plain sight: names appear in published judgements while orders forbid mentioning them.
This is not a complex legal question requiring sophisticated analysis. It’s a straightforward contradiction that any observer can identify. The wilful blindness to this contradiction suggests that something beyond legal reasoning is driving these decisions.
The question remains: how many more contradictory orders and circular decisions will be required before someone in authority acknowledges this simple puzzle piece sitting in plain sight?
A Third Layer of Contradiction
As if two sets of contradictory orders weren’t enough, there is now a third set of orders based on Judge Brown’s unimplemented correction certificate, this time made by Judge Alliott. I have requested reconsideration of these orders, but my request has been ignored thus far. With Lord Justice Bean’s recent ruling, I suspect the tribunal will now use his decision as justification to dismiss my reconsideration request without addressing the fundamental contradiction.
I am continuing to appeal these decisions, though I have little confidence in what new reasoning the judges might invent to maintain this untenable position. After witnessing this pattern of behaviour, I no longer have even a speck of trust in these judges’ ability or willingness to engage honestly with the glaring contradiction at the heart of this case.
The troubling pattern of judicial conduct documented in our previous articles finds further validation in Lord Justice Bean’s recent praise for Judge Quill’s 2023 Employment Tribunal judgment. This endorsement of Quill’s handling of the case—a judgment that demonstrably misrepresents evidence—reveals the depth of the problem within our judicial system.
Who Guards the Guardians?: Water Under the Bridge?
Despite my complaints about the justice system and judges being dishonest in judgments about the evidence, let alone not applying the law, I keep on fighting. Why? Precisely because they keep victimising me. They want to replace facts and evidence with their biased personal opinions and then produce permanent anonymity and restrictive reporting orders to silence me, which only emboldens two sets of already abusive employers.
In any profession, we expect the person to do the job they are hired to do. We expect them not to abuse their position, not to lie, and not to harm anyone. In our justice system, it seems we have no right to expect any of these from our judges. In my cases, I have been victimised not only by the employers but more so by the judges who covered up for them. Why I fight is not only because I have to find a way to stop this ongoing abuse but also because I have respect for what our justice system should be. If the judges who are supposed to represent our justice are acting in a way that harms the public, I have a duty to expose that and also try to correct it.
At the moment, our justice system is being used as a place where private interests are prioritised over any form of even basic justice. Although I am mainly writing about the employment tribunals and the following appeals here, I know that there are serious similar problems with magistrates and county courts. I have experience of these matters as both a professional and a court user and can easily back all of the problems I identify with evidence. But the real question is: if I can notice so much, why isn’t the system correcting itself by other means?
I don’t know if this dire state of the justice system was always the case or if it simply went into a steep downward spiral after the cuts on legal aid and the removal of appeal rights in the last decade or so. Whatever it is, this is not a sustainable situation for the public.
In my experience with the tribunals, I notice that what the judges dread most is being observed. They simply hate it, and although they can still lie in judgments, they limit it when they have been observed. Even a simple rule of recording all hearings and making the transcripts available for the public, and not destroying files so soon after the decisions are made, would ensure judges do not breach the requirements of their jobs to this level.
In its current state, I am embarrassed by our justice system and our judges. They simply see each litigant as someone who can be abused for the monetary interests of the profession and don’t think twice about misrepresenting facts and character assassination of people who have already been abused. I am clearly a fighter and don’t like showing any vulnerability, especially because they only exploit it further.
The way numerous judges who pretended to be independent while clearly brainstorming together produced lies about me and so openly protected the alleged feelings of wealthy employers in a situation that started with a simple wage claim is shameful. The fact that they produce orders to protect their lies and their alleged right to abuse me is shameful. Telling me to stop talking about what happened and accept privacy orders while publishing the names themselves is akin to asking me not to breathe and won’t happen. The fact that they don’t see that is embarrassing, and the judges made a simple right I exercised—to bring a claim when I was owed money—into a burden of many years.
They see it as though each claimant/litigant is water under the bridge. And they dirty the water all the time with their litter while being paid by the very public that is supposed to be the water.
Who Guards the Guardians? No.4: Judge Quill
Employment Judge Nicola Walker
A closer examination of how Employment Judge Walker’s decisions created an illusion of justice while facilitating exploitation
…
Leave a Reply