London Employment Tribunal: Chairman Lewzey complaint
 
Judge Merran

President of the Employment Tribunals, 

101 London Road,  

West Croydon,  

CRO 2RF

 

23 rd August 2008,

 

RE: Complaint against Chairman Lewzey of the London Tribunal

Case No C.D’Silva Vs UCU: 2405352/2006 & 2401488/2007

 

Dear Judge Merran

 

 I enclose my new complaint against Chairman Lewzey and her conduct at the CMD held on the 31st August 2007 at the London Tribunal.   As stated in my letter (mistakenly dated 23rd July 2008), I challenged her decisions via an appeal as suggested in your letter dated the 8th August 2007.  However, I would like to outline my complaint as follows:

 

a.  My representative, Mr Deman explained, that he had made a formal complaint against Chairwoman Lewzey to the President of the ET and also to the Office of Judicial Complaints & Ombudsman which still remained unresolved. My representative showed her a copy of the letter in which he had taken up the matter with the Judicial Complaint’s office, in which he made serious allegation against Ms. Lewzey that she suffers with racial bias that she supports the Respondents’ Union run by the  “Zionist Labour Party mafia”. However she refused to recuse herself from the hearing. Mr Deman’s case involved the same union, which is Labour Party frontal organisation.

 

b.  At the CMD held on the 31st August 2007 it appeared that Chairwoman Ms Lewzey was predisposed against my lay representative and also against me because of my association with him. 

 

c.   Ms Lewzey refused to allow a minor amendment in my 1st and 2nd ET1 to include acts of indirect discrimination although the complaint of racial discrimination include both acts of direct and indirect discrimination. Further, in the ET1 from there was no separate box to check for indirect discrimination. This issue was raised both by Mr Deman and later by Karen Monahan, QC in my appeal against her decision (UKEAT PA/1414/07/LA; UKEAT PA/1086/07/LA; UKEAT PA/0995/07/LA ). 

 

d.      She refused disclosure of the Law Society and Ombudsman’s document as to conduct of one Mr Michael Scott, Labour Party Union Solicitor on which the Respondents relied in their defence of my claim. This showed where her loyalties lay.

 

e.       On the first day of the hearing on the 28 January 2008 a full Tribunal chaired by Mr Sigworth overturned Ms. Lewzey’s decision to refuse disclosure of the Law Society and Ombudsman’s adjudication. Clearly Ms Lewzey’s decision turned out to be wrong upon review by a full tribunal and disadvantaged the claimant  and undermined the fair adjudication of the claim in view that a new folder of documents were disclosed in regard to this matter during the tribunal . This clearly shows that she was predisposed against my lay representative and me.  I am inclined to support Mr Deman’s complaint of her unprofessional conduct and racial bias considering her conduct and her hostility to us.

 

f.        By her actions she colluded and conspired to pervert the course of justice by aiding the respondents, a Labour Party frontal organisation.  In view of the reluctance of President of the Employment Tribunal to investigate this matter I  intend to take  up this matter with the Police and Office for Judicial complaints.

 

   Yours Sincerely

 

 

    Dr Claudius  D’Silva