top of page

Corrections and filling in the blanks3, Employers' Costs Reconsideration Application CetinvGriffiths

The Mareuge-Lejeune/Griffiths applied for reconsideration of the costs judgment dated 18th of October 2019. Their letter was a shocker. I will first comment and correct on the Judge's reasons and then give a summary of what they wrote in that awful letter they sent to the Tribunal.

Page 1, paragraph 5 states their application was conditional on mine. That is not true. Initially they sent a letter in April and that was I believe conditional but later they changed it. The Judge herself confirmed in a letter too that they wanted to apply for costs anyway. I think the judge is trying to make them look less unreasonable as these people who had broken the law so many times were demanding me to pay them £40000 after treating me awfully and had lost a basic wage claim. 'I required both parties to make written submissions and provide costs schedules if they wished to make costs applications, which they did. The costs applications were too complex to be addressed on paper and a hearing was fixed for 8 August 2019.' Here by saying the applications were too complex she conveys that both parties sent information in time which is not true. DWF sent the bundle late the night before and the other documents were apparently sent just before the hearing and they never sent the receipted invoices to complete their application.

"2. As noted, there had been various letters and written submissions so both parties were aware of the nature of the arguments to be made by the other side." Absolute lie. I did not see their skeleton arguments until I went into the hearing room. "It is not in the interests of justice as the Respondents are seeking to reopen the matter to allow evidence to be submitted about the background to the reference information, which could have been given at the time." I am assuming this is about my other former employer these two have been collaborating with and have helped since I resigned and brought this claim.

"8.The argument made by the Respondents was summarised as the Claimant making various allegations against the Respondents, which were both unpleasant, irrelevant and additionally unfounded. In submissions the Respondents argued that the Claimant had sent numerous lengthy emails containing abusive and inappropriate comments about the Respondents that bore no relation to her tax demand or unlawful deduction arguments." This is so abusive because these people managed to stop my other claims by complaining, limited my evidence and now are trying to turn it into money by labelling it as 'abusive, inappropriate' etc. By this time they had already lied to some social workers to help my other former employer by using the same arguments. This way of functioning demonstrates how they operate within the system and why it is absolutely imperative to follow principles for public servants while dealing with the public.

In paragraph 10 they are disputing that they are a "professional couple". The Judge had already helped them by not asking any questions and covered up for them by this explanation but it's not enough for them. They were high paid bankers when I worked for them and they probably still are.

I won't say anything about paragraph 11 which is simply a combination of untruths but these people raised that point again in a sarcastic manner, I believe because they enjoyed how the judge struggled with it in the liability judgment.

In paragraph 14 it states that 'The Respondents now say the references were there to show that the employment had been entered into on the basis of misrepresentations.' Really? How dare they even suggest something like that? My other employer lied to them for their own purposes. The letter that was supposedly from them is full of lies all of which are provable to the extent I did not even believe they had written such a letter. I considered the possibility Ms Mareuge-Lejeune had forged it herself. And also the whole thing about the other employer was about child abuse and I didn't want to share anything with these two for the reason they simply misuse information belonging to others. Sharing information with them about others, especially children were no an option for me. Also, they never referred to that letter at all during the proceedings. Yet, once she was called out for being dishonest she wanted to bring new allegations into the equation. The trickling of information about their own misconduct has been the norm since I have met them. Another point is that they did not know the other employer before I brought this claim. They knew the other employer used fraud in terms of my employment contract by putting me on the payroll as a personal assistant. And the letter didn't make much sense. There was no reason for them to start making allegations against me again based on other liars except to get judges to write something bad about me. This attempt in itself is victimisation.

They apparently received that letter -that is almost fully mentioned in the claim against the other employer-, put it in the bundle but never referred to it. They did not answer my questions around how and when they had obtained it. The other employer's company name was not on my CV so I didn't know how or if she could trace them. The other employer only confirmed they had indeed written that letter more than a year later at a hearing. So Ms Mareuge-Lejeune helped them by lying about these proceedings to a social worker who apparently was employed by family court. Apparently the other employer managed to get parental orders with her help and they gave her details of their own family court proceedings so Ms Mareuge-Lejeune could use it in making new allegations against me. She was hoping all this would show that I was wrong when I called the authorities while employed by the other employer but none of the details mentioned by them were correct, therefore it was all very confusing. Nevertheless, the content of their reconsideration application was the time I realised these two sets of employers were truly in touch and it was with a heavy feeling I realised Ms Mareuge-Lejeune who is extremely manipulative had indeed affected the lives of those children. She was proud of herself and obviously did not even consider the consequences of what she had done. She did not know those people, had no reason to have any positive opinion about them. It was clearly just another ruse against me as she wanted to create results she could recycle. And she did.

My arguments here are not about the details what happened with the other employer or their children. It is about the fact that Ms Mareuge-Lejeune did not even know those people until I brought this claim and apparently supported them by making allegations against me. This happened while the claim was ongoing. She has not divulged what she told them so the social workers so information cannot be checked. Knowing how effectively she has lied with regards to the employment tribunal claim, there is no reason to believe she didn't lie profusely to the social worker or my other former employer. It is not known if she even told them the claim was still ongoing. If she told them there was a live claim and the social worker still talked to this person, they are well below any professionalism level that should be allowed for a person who works in relation to children. If either Ms Mareuge-Lejeune or the other employer had told them about the claim which proves I was contactable on the same communication channels and the social worker did not contact me to even check what this person was saying, it just shows these people are not apt for the job. If they were not told about the claim, the social worker was being lied to in order to stop them contacting me. In any event, Ms Maregue-Lejeune was not a person in position to contribute any truth and all the reasons to lie. It is so disappointing that adults such as social workers who are supposed to protect children are so easily manipulated into submission and stupidity.

So Ms Mareuge-Lejeune claimed in their reconsideration application that " The references were obtained shortly after the claim was received, whilst the defendants were unrepresented. As detailed in the first judgement, the claimant and defendants parted in excellent terms and it was a shock to receive a claim for unlawful deduction to wages, discrimination, unfair dismissal, racism, psychological abuse, slavery and various other things." So they were unrepresented for a few hours, so they decided to dupe all of my former employers. And we had 'parted in excellent term" so they were upset about receiving a claim notification which they describe as all these. Parting in excellent terms' is that they believed they had duped me without any problems and had no intention to correct the payslips as they had promised. So what does an employer do? Well, of course start a war. They obtained that first medical report -with long term affects of this claim on her- the same morning and called my former employers and lie to them, all of them and reported me to the Police. That was their defence strategy. I had talked to them about my wages many times and they denied that I did, despite the written evidence. They promised to revise the payslips and correct them after I left. I managed to get the payslips after trying a few times and when they finally sent it, they had not corrected them or paid the taxes to make up the deductions. They knew I would bring a claim. And I stopped talking to them after they sent the payslips which showed they had still underpaid me. This was a most horrible job but I kept to my contract and wanted to leave professionally. Ms Mareuge-Lejeune made everything a matter to be haggled for. She in some ways wanted me to take them to court because she sees it as a challenge and enjoys such things. She had said if I was going to take them to court a few weeks after I started which I had found puzzling. By that time I had already talked to them about the first payslip being wrong. Anyway, this was not a shock to them. They planned it all in advance and cherished the opportunity. I had not taken any employers to tribunal before but I had to this time because they had simply swindled me during a horrendous employment.

These people had wanted me to stay and had tried to convince me to stay but started making allegations about 'who they had entrusted their very young children". Why? Because I brought a claim. So these people head hunt employees on the internet and have no problems with it at all but all of a sudden ' oh my god, she brought a claim'. Yet at the same time they complain I did not want to be part of their family and the evidence showed I was already complaining in my first week after starting. They also complained their children liked me too much and their own evidence says they would re-hire me if I had wanted to work for them. There is much more in their application but it is simply impossible to summarise it for the reason what they say do not make sense and most of it contradicts itself. There is a vast amount of untruths and attempts to manipulate and make allegations against me. Some of what they say is their own worries that I may have reported them to the Police.

One of their most repeated and most annoying lies is that their reference request from one of my former employers was a Freedom of Information Request and they blame the local authority for giving them information. It is such an obvious lie, one would expect them to stop repeating it by now but they repeated it at the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 24th of March and tried get the Judge to say they were right. I am sure this judge would if he could. Instead he wrote other vague untruths to help them and of course he glossed nearly all of their misconduct by useful language.

They were also pointing out to evidence the judge had ignored because they were in my favour. For example I had written to DWF and had challenged their unlawful behaviour. DWF had lied about the law as a response -to silence me- but these people are only concerned that I was courageous enough to write to DWF in this manner. They also complain I didn't copy them in to that email but they also often complain I don't contact them so they can justify reporting me to the Police. So they have been encouraging me to contact them in order to allege harassment. Yes, at least we know they cherish an opportunity to pretend they feel offended or harassed and try to create reasons to blame others. That also shows their allegations of certain feelings are based on their guesses how other people normally feel under those situations.

They also sent an email with assertions which would make many a people cringe. They made allegations about this website and made strange allegations that included even Mr Griffiths' ex wife. I have no time to find and put it in here and it would probably be a waste of time anyway.

I won't write more about their application on this post and that is a favour to them considering how bizarre a document it is.

Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page