top of page

Corrections and filling in the blanks4, My Costs Reconsideration Application Cetin v Griffiths

"6 None of the matters which appear to be what the Claimant regards as “factual mistakes, lack of accurate description of her claim or omissions” are such I consider that an error could have been made which could result in the judgment on costs being varied or revoked. Mostly the Claimant has identified omissions. It was never the purpose of the costs judgment to detail every single matter, but rather to explain the arguments and how the judgement was reached. Having read the Claimant’s application, I do not consider that there have been any misleading conclusions." So she accepts that there were mistakes and omissions but claims that they would not result in the judgment on costs being varied or revoked. I dealt with some of those in the post about the costs judgment. They are of course very important as she either downplayed the awful behaviour of these people and their representatives or omitted them completely. Those omissions show that DWF lied about the law more than once and when I was not represented. She only mentioned one of their lies in the judgement and claimed it was ok because I was represented. Although of course it led to me pressure from FRU and I stopped using their help. All in all I was represented about twenty days or so in the last three and a half years and this is against me while the awful conduct of these employers and their representatives the rest of the time are omitted. She even managed to not mention the names of the legal professionals or the company at all. On the other hand the name of the FRU volunteer who tried to help me for a short period is mentioned freely.

"7 The Respondents were named throughout the proceedings up to and including the liability hearing in line with the Claimant’s ET1. The Respondents participated fully in the proceedings. The Claimant only made an application for the names to be amended after the liability judgment and it does not appear that she requires this due to any difficulty in obtaining the monies awarded to her.' They were not named in line with my ET1. My ET1 included Mareuge-Lejeune's full name and this name was included only in their reconsideration judgment. It's not even on this judgment. Besides the tribunal is a public service and is funded by our taxes. Their job is to make sure who they deal with are the persons they claim to be. They normally use a form to ask these questions but did not on this claim. DWF had checked their legal names and referred to them by their legal names which are Stephen Derwent Griffiths and Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune but they lied for their clients. This judge did not even send me the letter that she apparently wrote in response to my application for these people to divulge their legal names. London Central Employment Tribunal ignored my email asking for a copy of that document. Therefore I was left out of parts of my own claim. In terms of the 'monies she awarded'; the so called 'award' was only part of my earned wages and I have a right to know who is paying me. These people claimed their insurance was going to pay my wages and I still want to know why an insurance company I had no connection with paid the rest of my wages. If that was true and the rest of my wages came from an insurance company I want to know their details and why they would pay wages owed by an abusive employer.

'8 The Claimant refers to papers which she says were disclosed by the Respondents but which they now say are confidential which should not have been in the bundle. She says she did not read those papers prior to the hearing and they were not referred to as far as I am aware.' I just can't believe the way this judge and the Tribunal weaves injustice. She was the one who allowed these people to bombard us with paperwork in the last minute. There was no time to even read the skeleton arguments, let alone prepare for it. They were extremely unkind about the bundle and later I found out those pages were not included in the printed copy they all of a sudden decided to give me a few minutes before the hearing. And she says those papers were not referred to. I wasn't even aware of their existence until much later and the DWF and the Respondents of course would not even want me to notice them. They show how these people and DWF operated throughout the proceedings, that DWF were aware of their clients' mostly illegal behaviour and helped them, that both were abusive to me and the public services, that Mr Griffiths admitted I had talked to him about the pay issues early on, that Ms Mareuge-Lejeune was the only one conducting this litigation while claiming to be distressed by it in medical reports, that she refused to engage with ACAS because she wanted to cause me losses and coveted my assets, that she wanted to bring a breach of contract claim against me, that she was talking to my other employer, that she was making insults and allegations against me with which even DWF found to be repulsive, that she was trying to contact Judges outside the Tribunal, that she was reporting me to the Police, that she wanted DWF to report me to the Police for emailing the company etc etc.

'9.1 Complaints that the position was more detailed than the judgment records. A reconsideration application is not a process for a detailed critique of a judgement, line by line. It provides a process for a party to raise matters where that party believes such matters indicate the judgment is based on errors or there are circumstances such that it is in the interests of justice for the Tribunal to revoke or vary its judgement. A judgment of this nature cannot be a complete account of every single detail that was raised by the parties in their written and oral submissions. The Judgment ran to over 14 pages and 86 paragraphs. I have explained in the Judgment where I sought to summarise the position and what matters I took into account. The purpose of it is that there is a clear explanation of how and why the judgment was reached and what was taken into account.' So when the details and arguments left out go against her judgment there is no way to include them in her judgment? So they can pick and chose the evidence and arguments? And write a judgment that hides injustice and all this is published online under my name while the employers are protected by fake names and I even get the blame for not knowing their legal names? So much for justice.

'11 The Claimant says she also complained about two additional matters. She refers to long emails written by the Respondents after the liability judgment was sent to the parties. She did make that argument. However I explained in the hearing that it was my view that the costs application related to costs incurred up to and including the judgment and not afterwards. I did not consider costs arising after the judgment on liability.' Why up to the liability judgment? I asked this question numerous times and they simply ignore it. Ms Mareuge-Lejeune had pretended to have been so badly affected by the proceedings up to the liability judgment and that process took only a few months. Yet, she made reconsideration and reconsideration application, I had to obviously engage in this process while she attacked me and made allegations against me for three years now. All this is for a measly remainder of my minimum wage and I am told for some unknown reason I have to end up with costs, being harmed, my life and prospects blighted by this these people because I dared bring a claim?

'12 The Claimant also refers to arguments about her national minimum wage claim more generally. The only issue before me, and therefore the only matters which I addressed, were matters relevant to the cross applications for costs.' That she left out how this claim became a minimum wage claim because of the Tribunal ignoring the deception and exploitation by the employer.

"13 The Claimant refers to the section of the judgment which is headed “Background”. She complains that she was asked to give witness evidence about her financial position. The Respondents applied for a costs order against her. Rule 84 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 provides that in deciding whether to make a costs, preparation time, or wasted costs order, and if so in what amount, the Tribunal may have regard to the paying party’s ability to pay. The Claimant was asked to give evidence about her financial position, as that is the normal process in order that I could have regard to that position, in deciding the Respondent’s application that she pay their costs. Had I decided that it was appropriate, applying the rules, that the Claimant should pay the Respondents some or all of their costs, her financial situation would have been a factor which I would have expected to take into account in deciding how much to award. The Respondents were also asked to give evidence on their financial position, but their representative said I should assume they were financially able to pay any costs order that might be made.'' This is a bunch of lies. These people did not even complete their costs application and she should not have allowed them to ask me questions for a non existent application. They had always been extremely greedy and coveted anything I had and that's why we were in that court room. She gifted my dignity to them for no legal reason. Yet she protected them by lying on their behalf. These people disputed the details of this paragraph themselves in their own reconsideration application. These lies only show the level of willingness some judges possess to allow employers abuse employees during the court process.

'14 The Claimant also refers to a question about the possibility of an adjournment at the outset. As the Claimant notes, she declined the opportunity to ask for an adjournment when it was offered, but was given some time to read the new documents." A judge's duty is to make sure parties on equal footing. I did not even know the extent of email these people had sent just before the hearing therefore could not have judged for myself what it entailed. They had not complied with the Tribunal rules and they should have applied for a postponement instead of being rewarded for causing disruption and loss of public resources and personal loss to me. And it is obvious I could not have read even what their paperwork in ten minutes let alone understand or prepare for it. I did not know the rest of the emails they had sent either. So what this judge is saying is that she knows the hearing was going to be and is unfair but she doesn't care.

'16 In relation to the paragraphs of the Judgment under the heading ”Conclusions”, the Claimant argues a number of points. In relation to paragraph 55, in which I address the Claimant’s argument that the Respondent had been deceptive, the Claimant says she was not able to pursue the totality of her claims. This appears to refer to the liability question, which is not the matter in issue at this stage. In relation to the costs’ application, I understood the Claimant’s argument that the Respondent had been deceptive was a basis for her assertion that their conduct was unreasonable, which is a test for whether costs should be awarded. This paragraph explains that in the course of the liability hearing, I focussed on the question of whether the Claimant fell within the exemption in the National Minimum Wages legislation. I did not ask for detailed evidence from the Respondents, nor make any findings on the assertions made by the Claimant about deception, as it was not necessary in order to determine the issues which I did have to decide. The Claimant’s assertions that the Respondents had been deceptive were contested by the Respondents. As this paragraph notes, I could not base a costs award on serious assertions which I had not determined, and I remain of that view.' They limit your claim, evidence and terrorise you with your own claim and then wash their hands off of it. That's what this paragraph is trying to do. Apparently there is well known case law allowing judges to award compensation, fine the employer, refer them for prosecution and award costs but the judges rely on the claimants not knowing these things and the Employment Appeal Tribunal routinely claims they don't understand the appeal because they know that you don't know those case law. So everyone covers for each other and the employer is protected while the employee ends up with further losses after having been abused during the employment.

'17 Paragraphs 58 to 62 set out my conclusion on one point, which is whether the Respondents’ defence had no reasonable prospect of success. The Claimant’s arguments do not address this as such; rather she addresses the extent to which her claim was clear from the outset. This is commentary on the Judgement and not a point for reconsideration. It remains my view that the claim was always treated by the tribunal as a wage claim but that it did become clearer over time. At the hearing I was asked to determine whether the National Minimum Wage Act was inapplicable by reason of Regulation 57(3) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, which was a matter only drawn to the Claimant’s attention approximately two weeks prior to the Hearing.' Once again that my claim was always treated as a 'wage claim'. Remember I am being told that I should have brought my other claims? I will have to deal with this bit again later on.

'18 The Claimant refers to pressure that she alleges The Respondents’ representatives put on her representative at a particular point in time and advice she received from her advisers. In most cases a tribunal will not look into the relationship between a party and their representative. Legal professional privilege prevents that. It is normal practice for legally qualified representatives to talk to each other about the merits of a case and its preparation. There is no complaint from the FRU representative or the Claimant’s solicitors themselves.' Really, does she expect FRU representative to complain about DWF? Do professionals complain about each other as opposed to getting rid of their client, especially that FRU is a free service? Would they even be courageous enough to raise a complaint about a company. The volunteer was traumatised himself and was probably out of the country already. I do have proof that DWF threatened him with a complaint.

'19 In relation to paragraph 73, which addresses points the Claimant made about the judgment monies being outstanding, the Claimant refers to a discussion at the hearing when the Respondents’ representative said the Respondents wanted the Claimant’s bank details in order to check they were paying the judgment monies to the correct account and they Claimant refused to provide these details. The Claimant correctly notes that I could not see why payment had to be made through her bank and it was my view that the Claimant was not obliged to provide her bank account details. I could not understand why the Respondents did not simply send the Claimant a cheque. I did urge them to pay the Claimant quickly and I did suggest that if the parties could not sort the matter out between them, they could apply to the Tribunal again if we might be able to assist in reaching a solution in which the Claimant received the sum adjudged due. My objective was not to “warn” the Claimant. I did stress my hope that the parties would co-operate to ensure the payment was made to the Claimant quickly. I do not consider this is any basis for reconsideration.' She told them to bring me back to the Tribunal if I had not cashed the money they owed me. She worried about any interest they might have to pay and did not want to divulge their legal names either. Of course if a judge is talking about the poor wealthy employer's insurance having to pay me a few pennies of interest she also knows that they owed me interest. These people kept my wages for so long and I had to take them to Tribunal to recover it and also got only a bit of it because of this judge. I also spent thousands and a few years and yes, she was worried about any interest they may pay. In short all of these people used my claim to penalise me and prepare an undignified environment for seeking my rights.

'20 The Claimant also says that at the end of the hearing, which is a reference to the liability hearing, she said she wanted to apply for costs but says I tried to dissuade her. I did dissuade her from making an immediate application at that time. I did not think she understood the basis upon which costs are awarded, nor was she prepared for any application at that point. I explained that Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 provides that before costs are awarded a tribunal must decide that a party (or that party’s representative) has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in either the bringing of the proceedings (or part) or the way that the proceedings (or part) have been conducted; or any claim or response had no reasonable prospect of success. I pointed out that the rationale for the judgment which I had just delivered orally was such that she would have difficulty in the argument that this was a matter where the response had no reasonable prospect of success. Additionally, at that point in time, immediately after the liability judgement had been delivered, the Claimant did not have any schedule of the time she had spent. The Claimant had the opportunity to apply for costs after she got the written liability judgement, which she did. I gave her a significant period of time to provide all the details necessary for a costs application, including her schedule of time spent.' She did try to dissuade me. She said it was kind of pointless as she was going to make that decision, meaning she was not going to award it. She also ignored my arguments regarding the room being free in the contract and the evidence that showed I had not changed my address at all. And their defence did have no prospect of success because my salary was evidenced to be higher and they even had paid more than minimum wage after the end of that tax year because they had used up my tax allowance as part of my wages. They had also lied about how much they paid me at the hearing on 3rd of October. They had no prospect of success and used deception during my employment and during the proceedings. These conditions not only justifies full costs, they justify compensation, them being prosecuted etc etc.

'21 The Claimant argues that she wanted her claim to include more matters than were considered and she refers to discrimination and constructive dismissal. As I have noted, this is a reconsideration application in relation to the Cost Judgment. Insofar as the Claimant is explaining why she disputes the Respondent’s argument that that they should have costs awarded in their favour because of what they described as lengthy and unfounded allegations made by the Claimant, their argument was rejected and therefore I do not need to reconsider this. The explanation in paragraph 78 addressed that argument made by the Respondents and the fact that they referred me to Employment Judge Welch’s order. This paragraph sets out why I rejected their argument.' Obviously I never gave up on my claims and it was the Tribunal who treated my claim for 'wages' only. And the insult of trying to label the details of my claim as 'unfounded' while not wanting to discuss them. If the Employers were so confident that my claims were 'unfounded' they would not have tried to strike them off and sweep under the carpet. Trying to label them as such while not wanting to discuss them is just their way of wanting to extort money as costs. It just shows how creative they are in terms of making money out of their own misconduct.

'22 The Claimant complains about Paragraph 82 of the judgment, which is a general paragraph, which merely sought to recognise the fact that this has been a difficult situation for all parties. It did not raise a new matter.' This is the paragraph in which she insinuates I brought the claim after the 'relationship broke down' not the other way round. She of course doesn't mention my explanations of Mr Griffiths emailing me long after I resigned and that he had still not corrected it, which led to the claim. I refused to communicate with them after I managed to get the payslips which showed they had lied to me to make me work longer and harder. Also this was an employment relationship. Just because I like looking after children and cared for their children deeply did not mean I had any other type of a relationship with these people. They were deceptive, abusive, racist and I do not like such people or want to be friends with them. I may tolerate them for a limited time while trying to deal with issues though. What the judge was in fact saying in that paragraph is that Ms Mareuge-Lejeune managed to get to her with the numerous medical reports but she doesn't want to openly admit it as ripping an employee off of her basic rights to please a spoilt employer would also mean an open acceptance of slavery.

"23 In relation to the additional matters that the Claimant seeks to raise, she refers to her efforts to amend the claim, which were made after the claim had been heard. The Claimant refers to her application made in June 2019. The first hearing took place in November 2018 and the judgment was given orally on 10 January 2019. There is no process for amendment at that stage.' As long as we know I was still not accepting how they treated me and was still trying to find a way to protect myself.

"24 The Claimant also refers to notes made by the Respondents’ solicitors, which have come into her possession as new evidence. The Tribunal does not normally consider notes made by a party’s solicitor as they are protected by privilege. While it is possible for the relevant legal professional privilege to be lost, I would not consider any such notes unless I were absolutely certain that such privilege no longer applies and that could require argument from both sides. I do not have the files of papers lodged for the costs hearing to hand as, due to the coronavirus pandemic, I am working remotely. I have no recollection of seeing any notes from the Respondents’ lawyers.' They did lose that privilege when they shared it willingly. And they show how the Employer and DWF behave and greed from both these people as they wanted to limit my claims while refusing to engage in mediation so everyone could make some money on my back and on the insurance. Meanwhile Ms Mareuge-Lejeune was afforded the pleasure of waging war on me, yet another nanny whom was brilliant, whom she felt rejected by despite having treated her badly.

"26 Finally the Claimant asks the Tribunal to revoke a decision not to order the Respondents to provide photographic identification documents pursuant to her request made in July 2019. The claim had been determined by then, apart from the question of costs. The Respondents had participated in the hearing and I can see no basis to order them to provide photographic identification. While the Tribunal has wide case management powers, this application was made when the substantive claim had been determined and the only matter outstanding was the question of costs. The Respondents had been identified in the proceedings in line with the ET1 and have participated fully in the proceedings.' As mentioned so many times the names on the judgments are not inline with the ET1. The tribunal did not check their names. Also does that mean these people can use any name on each claim or other litigation? Does it mean it is my job to prove their name? Mr Griffiths had spelled his name differently under oath. Is that an ok thing to do in UK? And these people kept using the claims I brought against two of my other former employers to claim I have too many claims despite the fact they caused those other claims. What about their litigation history? How do we find out about those matters if they are allowed to use different names every time? They are not going to give us a list of it, surely. It is in the public interest for these people to identify themselves by one name and stick to it so other people know their ways of functioning. Including the correct details of events in the judgements is also important for the same reason. After all they are using deception to lure people into employment while deducting their wages in ways that they think are not detectable to the employee.

And of course this judge's preferred method of ripping me off my wages below minimum wage was to apply accommodation ofset despite the fact I had been lured into the employment by the offer of a free room. So it seems the legal profession is the reason why these abusive practices still continue and there is no case law about the accommodation offset. My other former employer whom the Griffiths/Mareuge-Lejeune are collaborating with also stole my wages by using a different method but lowered the amount they owed me by applying accommodation offset. Again the contract promised free accommodation. This practice is blatant exploitation and is apparently covered by the Modern Slavery Act but the legal profession is the reason the cases do not go up in the system. I wonder if the reason for their support is because they benefit from it. I hope it isn't, because it would be a horrible explanation to this ongoing injustice.

Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page