European School of Economics & Susan Coates found Guilty of Racial Discrimination

 Susan Coates & ESE Guilty as charged but but what a victim has to go through as the Tribunal Process is a Prison. 













European School of Economics & Dr Coates Guilty of Racial Discriminaiton


HHJ Meeran, Presidnet of Employment Tribunals had sent copies of Mr. Deman's ET1 and other document to Treasury Solicitor in 2002 erroneously assuming that his claim against European School of Economics & white female mafia was hopeless. He failed to respond to correspondence on Mr. Deman's behalf. Ultimately that claim was successful in the Tribunal after a full hearing and two Respondents were found guilty of direct racial discrimination.  


Ms Grose of Treasury Solicitor makes a big deal about a letter mistakenly signed by Mr Deman on behalf of CEM. However, she quoted only half the sentence from the CEM letter of 29 May 2002, which has reference to Scotland and she completely ignored the content of CEM’s letter including negative comment of HHJ Prophet, fomrer President of Tribunals on the merit of Mr. Deman's claim of racial discrimination without hearing them.  The last paragraph of the letter reads as follows:  


“Further in view of conflict of interest and HHJ Prophet's prejudgment on Mr Deman’s IT1 we request you to transfer his case to another jurisdiction preferably to Scotland.”


On 19 June 2002 CEM pointed out inconsistencies in Mr Meeran’s letter of 17 June 2002 as to alleged return of ET directions due to wrong address of the Respondents. 


As to Mr. Deman's initial appeals against the Tribunal’s earlier finding against him HHJ Richardson sent back appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal reviewed its erroneous findings in paragraph 3 of the ET decision promulgated on 13 June 2003 and on 23 October 2003 the Tribunal deleted the part from its decsion which read as follows [7/39/2156]:


“… We find that the Applicant did on a telephone call with Mr Palmquist a mother fucker and used the word fuck on a number of occasions.”


Thereafter Mr Deman  appeared before HHJ Richardson at the EAT and withdrew his appeal. 


Lady Justice Cox in relation to another interlocutory appeal she had agreed to review her decision therefore Mr Deman withdrew his appeal to the Court of Appeal against her decision [7/39/2175]. Hence, Ms Grose’s assertion was nonsense that the Court of Appeal refused Mr. Deman permission to appeal. Subsequently, Mr. Deman wrote to the EAT withdrawing his appeal as events had taken over. In fact, most of the Tribunal’s earlier decision which Mr. Deman appealed, it turned out that the Tribunal was mistaken as the Respondents’ legal representative having denied existence of CVs of short-listed candidates on 22 October 2003 now told the Tribunal that they do have CVs of short-listed candidates.  Consequently, the Tribunal had to abandon the part heard case and a cost of six days hearing was awarded against the Respondent. Although there is a copy of the decision of the Tribunal dated 21 November 2003 in the bundle [7/39/2157-2161] Ms Grose has not mentioned anything in her sworn affidavit as to conduct of the Respondent and an order of cost for 6 days hearing, which has not been paid to date.


Further, contrary to Ms Grose’s assertion about Dr Coates on 21st January 2005 the Corydon Tribunal promulgated its decision. The Tribunal concluded in paragraph 13.2 as follows:


“It is our unanimous judgement that the Respondents ESE and Dr Coates (who made the appointment) discriminated against the Claimant on the grounds of his race when Mr Vidgeon was short listed and appointed to the position of adjunct Lectureship and he was not and that this was on his detriment.  It is our unanimous judgement that Dr Mitchell did nit discriminate against the Respondent as she did not play any party in the appointment of Mr. Vidgeon”.


In relation to position of Assistant Academic Director the Tribunal in paragraph 13.2 concluded as follows:


    “It is our unanimous judgement that the Respondents ESE and Dr Coates discriminate against the Claimant by treating the Claimant less favourably that Ms Lopez-Rodridze on grounds of his race by failing to short list or appoint him to the Assistant Academic Director post and that this was to his detriment.” 


On 9 June 2005 the Tribunal awarded £35,667.90 in damages, which have not yet been paid.


Surprisingly, EAT allowed Respondents’ hopeless appeal against above decision to proceed to a full merit hearing. Had Mr. Deman been in the Respondents’ position his appeal would have been dismissed under Rule 3(7). Further we note that due to scandalous conduct of the European School of Economics the Tribunal awarded costs of 6 days abandoned hearing.  Dr. Coates failed to   show up at least few times at the hearing and she also failed to respond to the Tribunal and also to the EAT in response Mr. Deman's outstanding appeal against the decision of the Tribunal for its failure to award cost against her in spite of findings as set out in paragraph 68. Surprisingly, HHJ Reid decided to review its own decision to debar Dr. Coates on somewhat erroneous grounds and in spite of ongoing failure to respond the EAT continued to fail to debar Dr. Coates and listed the case for a full merit hearing.




It is clear from reading the decision of the Tribunal at the remedies hearing held on 10 May 2005 that the Appellant gave evidence to the Tribunal of his employment history and of the effect of the discrimination upon him. Submissions were made by Counsel as to that evidence and the Tribunal had no difficulty whatsoever in calculating and making an award of £35,667.90 against ESE. We simply cannot understand how the presence or absence of Dr Coates from the remedies hearing would have made any difference whatsoever to the procedure that the Employment Tribunal had to follow on 10 May 2005. There was little, if anything, that Dr Coates could have added to the submissions made by Counsel for the ESE. The only possibility that occurs to us would be in relation to apportionment of that sum between the ESE and Dr Coates: see Way v Crouch [2005] IRLR 603. That is an exercise which the Tribunal could easily have done, it being the same Tribunal that heard the evidence in relation to liability. It follows that the Tribunal have taken an irrelevant matter in to account, namely the absence of Dr Coates from the remedies hearing on 10 May and that that amounts to an error of law.


We have carefully considered the decision of Burton J. in Sinclair Roche & Temperley v Heard [2004] IRLR 763 and in particular, to the matters set out in paragraph 46. It is right that we should address ourselves to them briefly.


(1) Proportionality

That is not an issue here. Any remedies hearing is likely to be one day or less.

(2) Passage of time

Evidence was heard going back over several years and there must be difficulties of recollection.

(3) Bias or partiality

(4) A totally flawed decision. For the reasons we have given, we regard this decision as totally flawed.

(5) Second bite. There must be a real danger in this case that the Tribunal would attempt a second bite at the cherry, and reiterate its original decision, albeit in a different form.

(6) Tribunal professionalism. We do not criticise the Employment Tribunal, which clearly acted in a professional and careful manner. The fact of the matter is that the Tribunal has made a serious error of law.

For those reasons, we think justice would properly be done by ordering this case to be remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal to deal with the question of compensation. Our order, therefore, will be to reinstate the claim against Dr Coates and order remission to a fresh Employment Tribunal to consider the question of compensation against her and compensation only.

Finally, we were invited by Mr Martin to give guidance to Employment Tribunals in a case of this kind. He made some very helpful submissions in his skeleton argument. However, we have only had the benefit of his submissions. This case has not been contested on appeal and we do not think it right, in the circumstances, that we should offer guidance without assistance from Counsel for both parties. We therefore decline to do so. What we can say is that this is in our experience a unique case where a Tribunal having found liability against a Respondent, has then made no award of compensation when the circumstances require it but has gone on to dismiss the claim against that particular respondent. We hope that there will be no other such cases.


 Council for Ethnic Minoirty