top of page

Corrections and filling in the blanks, Judgment 2, Costs, Cetin v Steve and Melanie Griffiths

Updated: Dec 3, 2021

Here is the link to the costs judgment in the first claim:

At some point the Tribunals presumably were places where employees sought their rights when aggrieved. Not anymore. At least I don't thinks so, based on my own experience. I have spent thousands of pounds and three and a half years defending myself for bringing the original claim. The employers used every possible manner and influence to make my life hell because they felt too important for paying wages they offered. The notes show right at the beginning they were obsessed with my assets, wanted to take me to court for breach of contract for guessing a pregnancy, wanted to take ACAS to court for allowing me to bring a claim and demanded money from the Employment Tribunals as expenses. And of course they are still arguing I should not have had a right to any kind of claim because they were pregnant and submitted numerous pregnancy related medical reports all of which contradicted each other.

I don't know the statistics but apparently many employees are saddled with costs after losing a claim they brought against an employer. Imagine, you work in order to make a living and something goes wrong. It may be anything really. In UK the employers do not have to be careful at all because they are supported by the Tribunals, the employers-especially the big ones- have long standing relationships with the Judges. Even if a particular employer don't, they nearly always have insurance and their representatives will have those relationships. The system is built to cover up for employers and stitch up against employees.

Unsuspecting claimants like me come to the Tribunal only if something cannot be sorted out before getting there. You also have to be resilient, literate and reasonable. Most claimants don't have legal cover insurance, like me. I mean why would I? I don't expect any serious problems when I go in to employment. If anything, a new job is exciting and positive. Most claimants who have insurance don't get it for that purpose either, it's usually attached to another household insurance. But when you are a live in nanny that possibility goes out of the window. Although employers like to pretend they treat you as part of their family -all behind your back- so they don't have to pay you a proper salary, they wouldn't put you on their insurance. So live in staff, whether they are nannies or something else are at a particularly vulnerable position because they live in an employer's house, they often get treated exceptionally badly and they are the least likely type of employee to have an insurance.

A new claimant is upset and clueless as to what the a tribunal claim entails. There is a lot of irregularity in how different judges and tribunals work anyway. And there is all the dynamics behind the scenes. Tribunals claim they are informal and want you to trust them but in my -now- entensive experience I would say trusting an employment judge would be very unwise. I have been ripped off further by their help to the Mareuge-Lejeune and Griffiths. The Judges off course know what is right and what is wrong. Some of them are very competent and intelligent but nearly all of them want to utilise these qualities and their position against claimants. I will give some examples about what I meant here later in another post.

The costs judgment is so incorrect and incomplete I don't know where to start correcting it. Funny enough some of the information reveals what actually happened but would have been left out if they were not used as an excuse in this judgment.

First of all dates on the judgment: There was only one hearing for this application but there is two on the judgment. I believe it was written in this way as an excuse for the lateness of sending it. I believe this judge was so scared of Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune and Stephen Derwent Griffiths she kept postponing sending it as if we were going to forget what happened at the hearing. Mareuge-Lejeune had been full of anger at the hearing and the judge probably wanted to give it time before having to deal with them again.

The judge had told these people to go back to DWF in a letter when they were making a big mess of themselves and sending long emails I could only describe as hateful and full of lies. I made two applications to amend my application in that time because I didn't know how else to deal with the situation. There isn't much help, advice or guidance for claimants but what I was dealing was a proper attack, hostility and allegations. They couldn't accept losing a simple claim despite the fact the Tribunal had changed the claim in a way that made it unrecognisable to legitimise their deception when employing me. They made numerous reconsideration applications, sent 77 pages of petty receipts and kept asking if the Tribunal had received them. They started making allegations against me including saying no one would give me a reference because they thought some WhattsApp messages in which they were trying to get me to work for their colleague had been lost. I am guessing they had also forgotten that a lot of their own evidence praised me and made it clear they were very upset when I resigned, wanted me to stay longer and wanted me to go back. Even when they were insulting me they complained their children liked me too much. It was clear they thought they could do a better job than DWF and played to be a victim of them and me for bringing. a claim.

In preparation for the costs hearing I prepared a bundle of documents which I sent to DWF along with a witness statement more than a week before the hearing. The Tribunal rules dictate paperwork is sent at least one week in advance. After having to deal with Tribunals so many times I can safely say that no solicitor cares about this rule, they don't implement it and the Judges do not give a toss about it. I have seen two Judges who encouraged them to send documents in the last minute. So solicitors use it against claimants and bombard them before hearings with paperwork they wouldn't understand. I believe this is used as a tactic. So these learned professionals who have done this job so many years and times resort to this to win claims against claimants who were abused by their clients. One judge even claimed she didn't know about such a rule after working as a judge more than ten years. Imagine the lives she would have ruined in that time. Alas, DWF did not send any documents and I did not think they would until I received a huge bundle the night before the hearing. They were rude and told me to bring my own copy. I spent hours the following morning trying to print at a friend's workplace but couldn't do it. So I went to the hearing without their bundle but gave them a printed copy of mine. Oliver Sargent of DWF called me numerous times the day before the hearing and asked me to withdraw my costs application. It was pure harassment and I ended up hanging up the phone and didn't answer when he called again later.

Until the last minute DWF said Mareuge-Lejeune and Griffiths were paying their own legal fees. Just before the hearing their barrister came to the waiting room and asked me to withdraw my application. I asked her how they paid the legal fees and she said it was confidential but clearly wanted me to believe they were paying it themselves. The judge had asked for them to send the paid receipts which they had not sent so this information could not have been confidential or kept a secret. The barrister gave me a printed copy of their bundle which I found surprising considering they were very precious about it. In the hearing room the judge pretended they had completed their application which was simply not true. They also gave me copies of skeleton arguments and case law. Imagine being in the hearing room and being faced with all this. The Judge decided I could read and understand all this information in a ten minute break. Imagine I had given them a whole week to prepare for my simple but I believe well written arguments. And the judge didn't postpone the hearing, they didn't apply for it or even complete their own application. Of course I did not know the importance of any of this. Like any person who trusted a judge to be fair and professionals not to lie in a court, I went with the flow. I do not like wasting public service resources which a court and judge time is and I was ready. I wouldn't have guessed a judge or even an opponent's lawyers to be that cagey.

Well we had the hearing. These people came again suited and booted and didn't talk themselves but got extremely excited when their barrister grilled me about my bank account. These bankers who avoided paying my wages wanted to know how much money I have so they could rip me off for costs for a minimum wage claim they had lost. They were so confident they would win they got upset that the cap was £20000. The judge did not ask them anything about their savings, businesses, income or houses. She later suggested the barrister had said the insurance was going to pay any costs. That conversation did not happen either.

Ms Mareuge-Lejeune was very hateful watching me and my friends who were at the hearing. She talked and talked and talked to their barrister about something but the barrister dismissed her and got all blushed with anger. When the judge asked what she had said the barrister said it was irrelevant or something like that. Of course the barrister knew the misconduct that had happened behind my back and that they should have paid all of my expenses and knew I had very strong grounds for new claims -but didn't know about it myself-. She just wanted to get them out of there with minimum expenses. I believe the insurance had no involvement with the barrister's fees or this application at this stage. These people had made many complaints against DWF for losing the claim so DWF was, I believe paying for the barrister as they had already managed to get a lot of money from the insurance for a claim which they should never have accepted. They tormented me during a minimum wage claim, lied to me and to the Tribunal, repeated their clients' lies and threatened me with costs from the first email to the door of this hearing room. They had been rude, unkind, unprofessional and had lied about the law many times. They helped their clients abuse me and probably lied to the insurance. Their case notes show they were involved with Mareuge-Lejeune's complaints against the Tribunal which she had reserved before there was anything to complain about. And these people were planning to get me to pay them £40000 because they managed to get some medical reports and claimed to have been offended by the details of my claims. They also got compensation from DWF so all in all this was a productive business plan in their minds. And they also got to ruin my prospects and made me spend money while trying to defend myself against their attacks. So it was clearly an enjoyable adventure for them.

Going back to the judgment, the incorrect information is a lot but I will try to deal with them:

a) Paragraph 2. 1 says "She alleged that the Respondent lied to a former employer and obtained information about her without her consent.' No, I said I found out about six of them, they gave me information about six of them. Two of them were in the bundle although they did not even mention them. You can find the full list here: I believe they contacted others ie my educational Institutions etc but I have not got round to finding out those yet.

The same paragraph 2.2 says I said they had no prospect of success. Of course they did not. The emails and other evidence clearly showed they had lied to me and it was others who changed my claim to a Minimum Wage claim. Everyone is entitled to Minimum Wage. Just because the Tribunal twisted the claim and the evidence to help these represented and complaining people did not make the facts of the situation any different. No judge would say their defence had no prospect of success because that would mean those lawyers have lied to the insurance company. So once again the claimants become the sacrificial lamb. I believe it is disgraceful for the country that someone is deceived into a job and has to later pay thousands and a few years to enforce a basic minimum wage right while the employers attack them to no end. This is what happened here.

2.3 I will come back to the disclosure of documents another time.

2.4 Unnecessary documents in the bundle include Mareugue-Lejeune's aunt's death certificate dated 2012. I still don't know the relevance of such a document in an employment tribunal bundle. There was also more than a hundred pages of nonsensical internet junk about nanny agencies. And of course those two letters they had obtained from my other former employers by misrepresenting themselves and a payslip from one of those employers. One of the letters which is the subject of my claim against that other employer was an undated, unsigned letter full of lies. It was so incorrect that I was not even sure that those people had indeed written it. But nevertheless its purpose was to make me look bad. Those people had also begged me to travel abroad with them which I refused but they claimed they had 'dismissed me' for reporting them to social services. I had not reported them to Social Services either. I will deal with the contents of that letter another time. And of course, whilst including even a death certificate of an unfortunate but beautiful aunt, they managed to leave out my evidence which showed their fraud. Imagine these people demanding you pay them for hiding your evidence, harassing you and helping your former employer commit illicit acts to harm you and harass you.

2,5 mentions one costs threat. I was subjected to costs threats from the first minute to the last and I still am, as they are obsessed with getting money out of me. They appealed against these decisions numerous times in the hope of getting money out of me.

2.7 says 'Reconsideration application'. Very vague isn't it? Later in the judgment there is a sentence which claims I made those applications. I don't know why the judge tried to conceal the fact that these people made those applications. It may be because the contents and the manner they made the applications were greedy and unreasonable. And the details of those applications were not published by her presumably for the same reason.

2.8 Their names being inappropriate? What I said was these are not their legal names. They pretended I was only disputing her name and ignored the fact Griffiths was also lying about his. He is Steve Griffiths on the claim. That is not his name. She later claimed Mareuge-Lejeune was her maiden name. Well she was known by this name everywhere including at work, at the doctors and she contacted my former employers under this name, complained to the Tribunal under this name and even submitted a recent interpreting invoice under this name. She had not changed her name and had no intention to. I applied for a disclosure order for them to prove their names to which the judge said she had sent a response to. I was not included in that response and emailed the Tribunal many times but they have refused to give me a copy of this letter. The judge told me about this at the hearing. DWF addressed them by their legal names but they opposed to their legal names being disclosed on the claim by saying it was 'unnecessary'. And they claimed I had called these two as Mr and Mrs Griffiths as it was on the contract I found in my possession when I brought this claim. In brief they blamed me for calling them by names that were not their legal names and that I should not change it now. If I ever knew I would be responsible for naming my employers at some point I would surely spend some time finding something more creative.

2.9 'The lack of cooperation on matters such as the bundle and not providing a hard copy' . This surely is an understatement. They were hostile. They still are. And that point I had not even found out the other things they had done behind my back. Some of those things came to light when they applied for a reconsideration of this judgment ie they had reported me to the Police and had got involved in that other former employer's family matters. Later I went thorough some emails DWF had sent in the last minute before the hearing and realised the extent of the war these people waged on me. The case notes that were in the electronic copy were not in the printed copy their barrister had given me before the hearing and presumably she was trying to stop me looking at the electronic bundle later. Imagine I went into a hearing without knowing all these things had happened minutes before the hearing started and I was expected to know the full impact of these matters. After the hearing I was so fed up with it all I did not even look at the skeleton arguments or anything else. I did expect the judge to award me all of my expenses as not doing so would be extremely unfair under the circumstances.

Their assertions: 3.

  1. "The lack of particularity in relation to the Claimant’s claim": Nice one really considering they applied for a strike out of my emails detailing the claim. They never asked for any details either.

2.:"The change of the Claimant’s case from a claim relating to deduction from her tax to a national minimum wage claim." As I have said many times and I am sure Judges and Mr Griffiths who is a tax adviser know this: The Employment Tribunals do not deal with tax claims, I didn't have a tax claim. Not paying income tax was this particular tax adviser's method of stealing from my wages. He didn't pay any income tax on my wages which brought the gross below what I was contracted to and even below minimum wage. I believe they were confident that I wouldn't detect this and were annoyed that I did, so they kept calling it a "tax claim'. What he did was to steal my tax allowance for the tax year.

3. "A request for costs for the period prior to the Claimant amending her claim around 13 or 14 September 2018.': I am unsure what they mean here and will check their skeleton arguments at some point but it could be that I mentioned that the pay was below minimum wage. But you will see later on that they claim I changed it to minimum wage in November. So they were demanding money because I amended it in September but also demanded money by claiming I didn't until November. This dual way of allegations have always been their method and they caused an unbelievable amount of confusion and illogical debris thorough out the time I dealt with them. There has always been parallel documents, parallel answers, parallel stories from them which all of them clashed.

4. "The Claimant making various allegations against the Respondents which were both unpleasant, irrelevant and additionally unfounded." The truth was unpleasant to them. They were relevant because they used deception, they claimed they had treated me like family while exploiting me. They also proved much worse than anything I said about them by their conduct during the litigation. They limited my claim, my evidence and what I can say only to claim they were 'unfounded'. What is more insulting is that they helped my other former employer in their family matters despite the fact these people knew nothing about them except that they had also used fraud in the way they dealt with my employment.

5. "The Claimant’s provision of Turkish documentation with no translation.": This was about a few WhattsApp messages which showed these people lied about the date we signed the employment contract and I did say what it was about in the email. I think the the sore point about this matter was that Ms Mareuge-Lejeune was overly bothered about it and disputed the translation their insurance paid for. So she got it translated again. I believe she would have translated it herself via Google and wanted to prove she can do a better job than me and two interpreters. She also wanted to prove that I am not an interpreter. At that time she was obsessed with my CV and rubbished all of my other professions. They also claimed they did not know what my mother tongue was in an effort to make up for the racist remarks in their witness statement. They only made more racist comments. It is all very bizarre as these people wanted to prove they had treated me like family, that I was such a good nanny that they would want me to go back to them and that they were nice to me but claimed they didn't know my language. And that I cannot be an interpreter or a counsellor or later on that I was no good and no one would give me a reference. I know its all bizarre, messy and dizzying. This is what they did and the petty details around the translation of this document is designed to distract from the original point. All the other confusing and conflicting arguments were also designed to distract from the basic matters. Nevertheless, this so called employer who stole my wages and made me spend many thousands while trying to protect myself has been so adamant I should pay her for that translation she took the matter to the Employment Tribunal and used the foreign language as an excuse to racially abuse me in front of a judge who himself is probably at least equally racist if not more. They were not specific but I believe they were claiming either £40 for one or £80 for two translations.

6. "The Claimant’s claim in relation to the subject access request which was not part of the Tribunals jurisdiction'. I don't even know what is meant here. The DWF case notes show that DWF dealt with my Subject Access Request and charged the insurance for it. I believe this to be an abusive use of the legal cover insurance. A subject access request is a basic right of all employees whether they have a claim against the employer or not. I don't understand why an insurance would pay a legal firm for that sort of admin work unless they are being lied to. They had also edited the documents in a way that was not appropriate ie the name of the requester Ms Mareuge-Lejeune had been removed not by covering it but by manipulating the document. I obtained the copies of the documents from the employers who provided them and even the commas after her name are moved in the ones they sent me. So yes, they were asking me to pay them for that wonderful effort of forgery to cover their abusive conduct.

7. "The Respondent said the Claimant repeatedly sought to substantially amend her claim, to obstruct the proceedings and made unfounded allegations." Yes, I didn't particularise my claim well, they didn't want any information but yes I also repeatedly tried to amend the claim. What I understand from this is; Yes but, no but, may be. And regarding those allegations: I am not mentioning them here at this point. They stopped me proving them by being offended and by the help of medical reports only to come back and ask them to be labelled as 'unfounded' and to use them to ask for money out of me. I can prove my allegations.

In the background, bottom of page 2 it says "Respondent regarded the arrangement as one for a net payment to the Claimant but the Claimant saw it differently." This is where it means he meant to steal my tax allowance without telling me. "Her claim was treated by the Tribunal as a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages." Yes and this happened before any hearing or any other type of assessment and now I am being told that I should have brought my other claims then.

Page 3, Paragraph 5. "Following that advise her FRU representative notified the Respondent that the Claimant would instead be pursing the claim that she had not been paid the minimum wage.' I don't even know how that happened but I sure found out the last. Apparently either the Respondents or Ms Terri Schofield of DWF was threatening my representative with complaints. So my claim was sacrificed, I was pressured to withdraw my claim and the proper advice was withheld from me.

Page 3, Paragraph 6. "The matter was listed for a final hearing again on 28 November 2018 at which point the Respondent argued that the national minimum wage regulations did not apply to the Claimant due to the exemption applicable where an individual employee is part of a family." The Respondent did not argue anything, it was the Judge who decided it was going to be a minimum wage claim at the hearing on 28th of November 2018. That's why that's the only date mentioned here. This fact is confirmed in DWF case notes because their barrister Mr Dawson reported it back to DWF after the hearing.

Paragraph 7. "The effect was that at the hearing the main argument for consideration was related to the applicability of the exemption. Since that was a legal matter and the arrangements in the home were within the knowledge of the Claimant, I considered it appropriate to address that argument without any adjournment. Nevertheless, in practice the hearing before me focussed on matters which were significantly different from those that the Claimant had envisaged." Hence I didn't get any chance to get proper advice. And that the Judge knew it was an unfair hearing.

8. There was not need for another hearing, it was fully heard but the Judge was worried about Ms Mareuge-Lejeune's aggressive attitude and wanted to give time, hoping she may cool down. I did complain to DWF about her attitude and the emails between us clearly show that the claim had concluded and the only remaining issue was for the Judge to deliver her judgment on 10th of January 2019. The same emails show that DWF lied to me about the law again regarding their client's illicit behaviour when misrepresenting herself to half dozen of former employers. But this lie is kept out of this judgment whereas the one that was sent to FRU is mentioned but excused because apparently I was represented. in the same paragraph "The Respondent’s application was conditional on the Claimant making her application.' No, initially they said this but later wanted to apply for costs even if I didn't. They did the "yes but, no but" thing again and the judge picked this bit as she didn't want to make them look like the greedy people who were asking me to pay them £40000. "..parties both provided their applications with sufficient information for the matter to go forward.' That one is not true either. These people did not sent the 'receipted invoices' the judge asked them. But she let them have a go anyway so they could give her excuses to possibly not award me all my expenses in trying to recover my wages.

10. "It was clear throughout that emotions were at a high level. Both the Claimant and the Second Respondent in particular appeared to be emotionally engaged and all parties were highly critical of the other side." Yes she was very upset that the Tribunal did not award more than £20000 and she wanted £40000. We didn't know at that time but she had already reported me to the Police numerous times because she was frustrated about my claim and because she thought I might have reported them for misconduct. She had also helped my other former employer and was proud of herself for it. So she thought she could turn these things into some profit and further harm on me. They also had a lot of fun about my finances whilst the judge protected them by not asking any questions and claiming their insurance was going to pay the award. They and DWF claimed the insurance paid the remainder of my wages and the costs award. I am inclined to disbelieve this as it doesn't make sense for an insurance to pay an award that is related to misrepresentation of the employer, a shortfall of wages and something that is an abuse of process while at least some of DWF's bad behaviour is confirmed. Yet, Griffiths and Mareuge-Lejeune enjoyed this explanation and repeated it many times including at the Employment Appeal Tribunal and wanted me to pay them back this money which they claim was paid by their insurance.

Page 4, paragraph 21. I don't think that means a party can get their insurance to pay for an award and then appeal to get the money back for personal gain either. These two already tried to do that but if it was an accepted practice some people may turn it into a money making scheme.

Page 6, paragraph 35: In short her lies about me and their reconsideration applications with details about themselves that no other employer would put out there.

Paragraph 37: This was in essence a claim that should have been listed under modern slavery act and also for race discrimination. The emails made that clear but they had got the Tribunal to limit my claim to wages only. Later she produced numerous dozen page emails claiming they contained 'extracts' from my earlier emails. I did not read her extracts so I don't know if they really are that. They edited and created documents many times so I am tired of trying to track and compare every time she makes allegations. But what were in my original emails were never tried and there is evidence to prove them. At this stage Ms Mareuge-Lejeune was recycling results again by using the bits of emails that she had successfully managed to keep out of the claim, And I did not have a 'tax claim". Once again, not paying income tax was Mr Griffiths' very creative way of lowering my wages.

Paragraph 39: So calling half a dozen former employers four of which are small charities, talking to my former managers or managers who did not know me; telling them I was applying for a job and asking for a reference when I had already left and brought a claim is not 'lying' or it's not unreasonable behaviour. What about emailing them after and repeating the request and sending 'thank you so much!' messages after she managed to dupe them? Ms Mareuge-Lejeune later claimed the one she asked from London Borough of Islington was a Freedom of Information Request and they were to blame for giving her information. The one from the other nanny employer -who had put me on a company payroll to use my wages as company expenses fraudulently- was a 'statement'. But she pretended the other four did not exist. So they were nor Freedom of Information Requests nor witness statements. She didn't even attempt to explain them because they were not mentioned in the judgment.

Paragraph 39: "..the Tribunal had to determine whether the Claimant was a member of the Respondents’ family. The fact that the Claimant was successful did not mean that the Respondents’ defence had no reasonable prospect of success and indeed the judgment recorded that the Respondent had failed to tip the burden of proof to satisfy the Judge, indicating that it was a fine balanced case.' Such an insult considering all the other evidence that shows the deception. I did not want to be part of their family, the claim turned into minimum wage because of others who were constantly complained about by Ms Mareuge-Lejeune. It was not a fine balanced case because this same judge had written a judgment saying she was very firm about her decision that I was not treated as part of their family. Besides I am not a slave that was bought and sold. I applied for a job after being head hunted by them. I am an adult who makes decisions for myself. Talking about me in this manner by itself shows these people cannot respect me. And this judge did not publish their liability reconsideration applications to protect them while sacrificing my dignity and also her new decision would clash with what she is saying about it here.

Paragraph 41: 'In relation to hidden real names, the Claimant appeared to be suggesting that Mrs Griffiths was using different names because she was not using her middle name when in fact she uses both her married and maiden name and this could not be said to be unreasonable behaviour.' No. What I meant was that Mr Griffiths' name is not Steve Griffiths: He is Stephen Derwent Griffiths. She is Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune. She had not ever referred to her name as her 'maiden name'. She had not changed her name as I said before. Female humans do not necessarily take male human's name when they are married to one. And none of these people took each other's names. They used these fake names for the purpose of this claim to anonymise themselves because Griffiths is a common name. They were not bothered at all about any implications of online judgments until her legal name appeared on a judgement. Her legal name was always on the claim but the Tribunal had left it out of judgments. The Tribunal normally checks names but had not on this claim. Like many other shortcuts on the claim this one also cost a lot of wasted time.

Paragraph 42. "In relation to the Respondents referring to the matter as a tax claim, the Respondent said it was in practice a tax claim originally.' Why does she even repeat what they say? Does the judge not know that Employment Tribunals would not accept a 'tax claim'? Is that not a kind of insult to the court official, presumably another judge who accepted the claim?

46. "In relation to striking out of emails the Respondent was entirely entitled to request the Tribunal to do so when the emails contained irrelevant allegations.: 43. "In relation to the argument of deception, there would be no factual finding in relation to this.' Yes, you first strike out emails that detail my claim and later find no reason to deception related factual finding. And that's how the Tribunal deals with exploitation and slavery claims.

45. "In relation to the documents in the bundle, the Respondents did not see how an inclusion of set documents could give rise to a claim for costs". Leaving out relevant evidence but including a death certificate of a poor aunt who was stabbed in the chest? Soon after we had lost a relative? Three years later I still don't know what that 'evidence' was for. Believe me I asked many times. And I still find it disrespectful and traumatising.

47. "In relation to objecting to the postponement application, that was reasonable as the Respondents wished to conclude proceedings as swiftly as possible." No, they wanted to catch me unprepared when I had just come back to London and was still grieving. They applied many reconsiderations and appeals which took a very long time but they didn't mind that at all. They are not interested in concluding the proceedings as swiftly as possible. Ms Mareuge-Lejeune in particular enjoys litigation, proven by the case notes that show she was talking to solicitors up to the day she gave birth. She was extremely excited about receiving those emails from me or my representatives and complained to DWF that my temporary solicitor might not send document in time for her to enjoy. At the same time she was telling the Tribunal she was affected by all this negatively.

48." In relation to making an application for reconsideration, the Respondent was entitled to make such an application." It was more than one application. Good that it's finally mentioned here. Why are they not published online?

49. "In relation to complaints about the judiciary, it was clear that a party is entitled to do so." Of course, but when the reason is because a party is pregnant and the employment happens to be a nanny job and the complaint is that a nanny should not have a right to bring a claim? That she shouldn't be paid minimum wage despite the fact they lured her into employment with a higher salary? Surely an employee does have a right to bring a claim and it is unreasonable for an employer to use a pregnancy to strike out a claim.

50." In relation to comments regarding the Respondents’ solicitor’s comments, they had responded and it was asserted that the allegations were without merit." What are the comments? How and when did they respond? This is my claim and even I don't know what this is about. I am assuming nothing is mentioned to protect DWF. In fact their name is not mentioned at all anywhere on these judgments.

'51. With regard to the Claimant’s reference to long emails it is not clear what was referred to. 52. In relation to the Claimant’s comments, she had made serious allegations about the Respondent in various emails.' The judge does not understand all the horrendous emails the Respondents sent after the liability judgment came out. In those emails they made allegations against me, lied, asked for money and sent more medical reports. But she mentions my emails from the beginning of the claim which were not even allowed to be discussed and are provable. So she is mentioning that I made 'allegations' but doesn't even say what they are and that they are easily provable. So it's all designed to portray me under a bad light while hiding the embarressing behaviour of these people.

53. 'Finally, in relation to the question of proof of payment, it was unclear what proof of payment was being referred to. In all the circumstances the Respondent argued that the threshold had not been met.' I don't know what this is but as it is not explained and but the Respondents' comment is included I am assuming one of my arguments are hidden under this.

"56. The Claimant submits that an application was made for references to former employers after the Claimant had ceased her employment in order to obtain information which was clearly used as part of the proceedings." They did not refer to these 'references' at all.

"58. The Claimant argues that the Respondents’ defence had no reasonable prospect of success. Initially the Claimant’s claim was confused and difficult for any respondent to reply to. It did however complain about the tax position. Later, on advice, the Claimant withdrew her claim about the incorrect tax and relied upon her national minimum wage claim which appears to have been articulated in her schedule of loss sent to the Respondents on 29 October 2018." I did not have a tax claim. The Tribunal does not deal with tax claims. If my claim was "confused and difficult to respond to" the Respondent could have asked for additional information. Instead they tried to strike out my attempts to clarify. The Tribunal could have asked me to clarify. They did not. My schedule of loss was based on my gross salary and mentioned the minimum wage as a bottom right. It also mentioned other things such as not having been given payslips for the whole duration of my employment. The Judge said there was nothing she could do about those things. I had already sent other schedule of loss among those emails no one wanted to read. I always responded to communications and they just waited and waited for me to fail to meet some deadline so they could attack me based on that.

'61. My firm conclusion was that the Respondent had failed to satisfy me and the burden of proof fell on the Respondent, so their argument failed.' Her decision finally is 'firm'. You remember above when it wasn't? I think these judgments are so long and confused the Judges themselves don't remember what they said and when. They just change the decisions and the so called 'facts' depending on what they want to say in a certain paragraph.

'62. In short, the claim only became clearly defined as a national minimum wage claim on 29 October when the Claimant sent her schedule of loss to the Respondents and the Respondents were never asked by the Tribunal to serve a defence to that claim as such' Minimum Wage was mentioned back in September and the case management hearing on 3rd of October also mentions it. 29th of October, Schedule of Loss included my gross salary. The Respondents made many complaints that I had mentioned it in September and Judge Welch put it in the summary. So as always they complained both that I had mentioned it in September and that they didn't like it and that it had been brought up too late in October or November etc etc. The fact is that this Judge is saying something that is incorrect to justify not awarding me costs that was accrued while defending a basic right which those people violated by careful planning and by using deception. These people also claimed on 3rd of October that they had paid me more than minimum wage. A basic provable lie that is recorded, known, pointed out many a times but ignored as many times.

'64. That letter did threaten legal costs and, had it been sent to the Claimant directly when she did not have legal representation, might have been unreasonable, since it incorrectly explained the legislation. However, as the Claimant had a legal representative at the time, I do not find that threat unreasonable.' One of the times DWF lied about the law. Only one of the times DWF threatened me with costs. DWF even said their clients had a right to lie to all of my former employers and this judge saw that email. I did not have representation then. Even when I had representation they were threatening him with complaints.

"65. The inclusion of certain information in the bundle by the Respondent may well have been irrelevant and unreasonable but I have not been in a position to investigate or consider it in detail and I am not in a position to make any findings on it." Why not? Should I have to spend thousands, waste years and be attacked by these people because the judge has not been in a position to investigate or consider in detail the inclusion of certain information which she accepts 'may well have been irrelevant or unreasonable'. Why did she not make a decision to make it possible? Why instead leave me with losses, empower these people and waste public service resources? Why did she not do that later when everyone was asking for reconsiderations? Why am I expected to know all these things as if I am a barrister? I think it's obvious to everyone, including her and the later appeal judges that this was extreme abuse but none of them were prepared to deal with these employers while they were waging war on all of us. The easy option for the judiciary was to make me go away with all the losses because it's simply not possible to bring an affective appeal to judges who only want to hear legal language and from a professional.

"67. The Claimant’s complaint about the Respondents application to strike out certain of her emails is not a basis for unreasonable conduct. It is clear from having dealt with this case, that as I have noted, emotions were running high. The Claimant did write lengthy emails containing a great deal of information on occasions that were largely irrelevant. It would not be unusual for the Respondents’ solicitors to endeavour to focus the matter on those issues which were going to be considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal itself has a role which involves managing cases and requiring the parties to focus on the issues'. The Tribunal should not have limited what I can say. An employer's alleged feelings of having been offended should not be a defence against a claim. A slavery claim is most likely to happen in this type of employment, so is exploitation and discrimination. Also an employer is mostly likely to be pregnant in this type of employment. If any of these are allowed to be used as defence or to limit claims that means the contract is not just a farce but actually is even worse as it is being used to lure employees into employment in which they are left unprotected. Allowing an employment contract as bait makes the state a party in the process of creating slavery.

68. "..but the Tribunal has always treated this as a claim for an unlawful deduction of wages." Time and again. And then I get told I should have brought my other claims before. Yes, when I wasn't allowed to even say anything and when the Tribunal limited me to a wage claim.

'69. The Claimant’s comments on the postponed hearing plus the change of argument to one of the family exemption appear to be that the Respondents also took up considerable time in terms of sending detailed correspondence (largely after the judgment) which was unnecessary. She refers in particular to the letter about the receipts. That was sent by way of an application for a reconsideration in relation to the accommodation offset. There was an indication the Respondents thought they might be able to set off these sums but the only matter which engaged the Tribunal was the reconsideration application, which the Respondents were entitled to make and which the Tribunal decided would have to be addressed at a hearing so that evidence could be taken. At that point it was withdrawn.' Yes these wealthy bankers are entitled to ask me to pay for the food their children ate, but I have to spend money and endure attacks while trying to get the wages they stole from me by using their status as as employers who happen to be tax specialists. And I have to punished for offending them but their embarrassing emails are pushed under the carpet.

'70. In relation to the Second Respondent’s name, the Tribunal have pursued the claim on the basis of the names used in the ET1.' That simply was not true at stage. Her name was Melanie Griffiths aka Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune on the ET1. Her name appears only once as it is on that ET1 and it is their own reconsideration application which is dated much later.

'71. In relation to the Claimant’s complaint about the Respondents’ complaints made about the judges and judiciary, there is a process for making applications to review judicial conduct. The fact that parties avail themselves of this cannot be said to be unreasonable behaviour. It would be contrary to the entire judicial system to have any form of discouragement to these processes, which are designed to uphold the high judicial standards of which we are proud.' Of course they had the right to complain if they had a reason. They were complaining that my claim had been accepted. I am being framed as if I am undemocratic when in fact these people were arguing that I should not have right to bring a claim against them. I would love to experience that high judicial standard for a change.

"72. In relation to the comments about the Respondents’ solicitors, none of these matters are matters in which I have sufficient information to be able to asses them as either reasonable or unreasonable. It is clearly the case that both parties found this claim emotional. Both parties failed to focus on the key points which were relevant to the issues." This judge said she was a solicitor herself and DWF had been bad. She also said the Respondents had been given a Rolls Royce service against me. I had given a lot of evidence to show how they had treated me. If she still didn't have enough information to make an assessment why not make an effort to find out? Nope, its easier to leave me with losses.

'73. Finally, the Claimant refers to the payment of the outstanding monies due under the claim. This is not a matter which is relevant to this claim for costs. This claim for costs was made in relation to the claim up to and including the hearing. I note that he Claimant seems to think it should encompass any costs up to and including the hearing of the costs application hearing, but matters of enforcement are not within the usual ambit of this tribunal. However, I have expressed to both parties the fact that I would expect both parties to work together to pay the outstanding amounts as swiftly as possible, given this is the national minimum wage at stake.' Why up to hearing? And also nothing in this paragraph is correct. I wanted the employer's names checked before I gave them my bank details and the Judge told them to send a cheque. She also told them to bring me back to the Tribunal if I didn't cash it because the judge was worried they might have to pay interest. Yes, on that £296 which was the remainder of my wages and which they had owed me for two years. And as if not accepting money from these people and solicitors who had behaved fraudulently is a crime. The judge of course cannot be expected to be mindful of the fact they had already kept my wages for so long before she gifted most of my actual wages to these bankers as rent even when I didn't stay in the house. And a house which was not only a dangerous building site but I didn't even have a key to it.

'74. In relation to the Respondents’ claim, the Respondents argue that the Claimant’s original claim had no reasonable prospect of success. However, as the McPherson case makes clear, Claimants should not be penalised where they recognise that some aspects of their claim are unlikely to be successful as this would deter people from doing so and therefore I do not regard this as a basis for any award of costs.' What part are we talking about here? Is it the 'tax claim' or deception, slavery, discrimination or perhaps not having been given payslips for the duration of the employment? If I cannot recognise what is meant how is anybody else going to?

'76. The changing nature of the Claimant’s case is also not a matter which merits a cost award. The Claimant was a litigant in person and she did what is not at all unusual which was to express her problems in the whole rather than clearly limiting them to the claims which the Tribunal can address. It is noteworthy that the Claimant had very little warning

Respondents raised in relation to the family exemption given their letter was sent to her FRU representative on 13 November when the hearing was listed for 28 November, i.e. only two weeks later. She had no knowledge of the detail of the legislation, nor was she aware of the assurance which had been given by the Respondents to their payroll agency about her being a member of their family. To the extent that was included in the bundle, it was not clear that the Claimant would have understood it nor could she clearly have read it since the copy provided was so badly blurred and illegible.' My claim did not change. The Tribunal did not treat my claim fairly and like other claims. They did not list it as it should have been: exploitation, unlawful deduction to wages, breach of contract, race discrimination, not providing payslips, not using their legal names on the contract. May be there is more but I don't recognise it. It is true that decisions were made on the claim without my consent or I was tricked by the Tribunal itself. The employers are demanding people who used many tactic and others for their purposes.

'77. In all the circumstances both parties have suffered to some extent by the changing nature of the claim and the issues which the Tribunal had to determine. In the circumstances I do not think this is the basis for any determination of unreasonable conduct or any consideration of an award of costs.' My claim did not change. Mareuge-Lejeune complained many times that I was still arguing for my original claims.

'78. The Respondent also argues about irrelevant, unfounded allegations in the Claimant’s detailed and lengthy emails. Employment Judge Welch did, as they note, tell the Claimant that she should only comment on relevant issues. When the Claimant failed to do so, the Respondent says cost were incurred in having to deal with the emails which had no bearing on the case and appeared to be written simply to cause distress and upset. First there is no evidence that the emails were written with that alleged purpose. The Claimant was for the most part, a litigant in person. She was clearly very distressed herself by the situation. Like many litigants in person, she appears to have addressed her wider concerns about the entirety of her employment rather than focus on the technical issues which the Tribunal had to consider, but this is always difficult for litigants in person. It would be rare for it to be a basis for an award for costs. Further, there were other steps which the Respondents could have taken, such as asking the Tribunal for a case management hearing at which the Tribunal could have explained the situation to the Claimant again and even made appropriate orders, or simply asking the Tribunal at the full merits hearing to ignore the irrelevant correspondence on file. The Tribunal is well used to defining the issues and save where communications go to the credibility of a party, irrelevant communications will be ignored by the Tribunal.' The confusion here is that: Ms Mareuge-Lejeune started writing emails which she claimed were extracts from my earlier emails. Because they had claimed to have been so offended by them no one expected her to recycle parts of the same emails, so the Judge is assuming they are talking about new emails. No, Ms Maregue-Lejeune loved editing and creating with those emails. Also, those emails are relevant and founded. I don't think they caused distress and upset either. I believe that they caused frustration for Ms Mareuge-Lejeune who always praised herself for having 'two feet firmly on the ground'. And she loves them because she used them against me during these proceedings and out of the proceedings where I didn't even know. And of course she wants to turn them into money by making me pay costs. And of course she wanted the whole world to know I had 'offended' her. The medical reports she submitted confirm that she was frustrated, not distressed or upset. Besides, if employers are going to be allowed to be too upset about the consequences of their behaviour on people they headhunt into employment, they should not be allowed to employ anyone in the first place. If they are going to be allowed to use pregnancy/health as defence then the legislation should be changed to allow employees to make checks in these regards just like employers do. Employees also should be able to check their police records and history with previous employees.

'81. In conclusion, I find that the actions of the Second Respondent in applying for references, which was a ruse to obtain information about the Claimant for the purposes of this litigation, apparently in the hope of discrediting the Claimant, was unreasonable. That action merits an order for costs.' That ruse has not ended. She calls my other former employer who are much like this set of employers "Employment Tribunal acquaintances', advises them and writes their tribunal letters. She even managed to defend herself in the name issue in one of those letters. She managed to get the Police to harass me with a message she used them to deliver in the morning when I had a hearing. She managed to get judges write untruths in judgments and other court documents. She has perfected the art of ruse since that time.

"82. Other than that, I am not prepared to make any order for costs in relation to this claim. As I noted, what is clear is that there was considerable emotion since this claim arose out of a relationship which, while not a family relationship, was certainly a relationship of close proximity. The breakdown of that relationship, after the employment ended, which led to the claim appears to have caused both parties more than the usual levels of distress associated with Tribunal claims." I didn't bring the claim because the 'relationship' ended. The 'relationship' ended because they sent me payslips which showed they had still not corrected the pay issue. What does she even mean?That I can be ripped off and end up with costs while the Tribunal leaves out the evidence of my communications regarding my pay just because of the type of job this was? Is that to say nannies do not have normal employment rights but have work under pretence contracts which are not that different to slavery contracts? So the employers can pretend they are proper law abiding employers until you make the mistake of coming to a Tribunal where you find out you don't have rights but they also penalise you by making you spend money and by ruining your prospects by their illegal actions and demands that are based on their feelings of supremacy?

"83. Reviewing the matter, I consider the unreasonable conduct on the part of the Respondents is such that some award of cost should be made. I do not consider they should pay all the costs, but rather a limited sum calculated to represent the time spent by the Claimant in consequence of the unreasonable conduct." So she knows my costs were higher than what she was going to award. So this judge made me pay these wealthy people -who have illicit conduct- rent and is penalising me by making me for coming to a Tribunal? So much for justice... and this is democracy? I believe these judgments are a bunch words that keep dancing to legitimise what is indeed slavery.

"84. The Respondents accept that they are a professional couple and relatively affluent. They accepted they could meet an award of costs. They agreed it was unnecessary to take detailed evidence on their ability to pay." They didn't say any of these things. They disputed it all later. They even denied being 'professionals'. The Judge spared them from having to answer questions about their finances while allowing these people to have a party of questioning me and she kept talking about my finances in their appeals for the following year.

And she awards me £507 for having to deal with one of Mareuge-Lejeune's lies. Wow really... This judge is an intelligent woman and is very capable. And presumably she knew the relevant case law to this claim although I didn't. She is the one who made both hearings unfair, limited my claims, ripped me off for these people. She is the one who hid the relevant evidence and allowed these people to increase their abuse exponentially after the liability judgement. The case law says she could have awarded the costs, awarded compensation, fined them and referred them for prosecution. It is simply bizarre to even suggest that Employment Tribunals exist to administer justice when they are clearly in place to harm the people employers abuse while employed. And after reading the judgment again I can see why Ms Mareuge-Lejeune is still arguing I should not have been allowed to bring a claim because she was pregnant and and produced many medical reports. The Tribunal encouraged her with this lax attitude albeit they were just trying to get rid of her and her complaints. The easiest option was to sacrifice my rights. And of course a judge wouldn't dare point out that these people didn't find their medical reports to be an impediment when fighting all this time to keep a few hundred pounds of my earned wages which they say an insurance paid. Oh no, fighting against a nanny's minimum wage is a democratic right for wealthy bankers.

And despite all this cover up for them Ms Mareuge-Lejeune profusely complained about this judge at their oral hearing on 24th of March 2021 at the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page