FG Solicitors

"Disgraceful. I had the unfortunate experience of dealing with Jane Liddingdon, a solicitor who sat on a case that I bought many years ago against Domino's Pizza at London South Employment Tribunal in Croydon for failing to allow rest breaks under The Working Time Regulations 1998. On several occasions she interjected when I cross examined one of the employer's witnesses even telling the employer not to answer my questions. Despite a letter from the employer saying I was not entitled to breaks as I was a part time employee she decided that I was taking breaks simply for crossing over the road on one occasion to try some free food that a new company were offering as freebies between certain hours of opening on the first day of trading. She said that the employment tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear my case as I was employed bless than one year but constructive unfair dismissal under s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996 does not require any length of service and the issues of whether or not the employment tribunal had jurisdiction had been resolved in my favour by the regional judge of the employment tribunal at a preliminary hearing. Shemade a ruling that I resigned due to receiving a settlement from a former employer when that settlement was received 6 months before my resignation and was money that the company owed me. In any event when settling matters with an employer a COT3 agreement states very clearly that any settlement remains confidential. She made comments to the effect that my dispute with my former employer was heading to an employment tribunal. When I said I said that I hadn't been to an employment tribunal before she said it was going there completely oblivious to the fact that I was unlucky enough to have work employment for successive employers who happened to be bad. During the hearing she said that the tribunal ruled against me because I had used words in the past tense (in a letter that I sent to the employer which they denied ever receiving) despite then using words in the past tense during the hearing itself when referring to my employer I said, 'He told me to stay' with her then saying 'He asked you to stay' which should have cancelled out that issue. A false allegation was made by a legal consultant representing the employer that I was perjuring myself for using words in a past tense saying that as a law graduate I shouldn't use such words even though I said it was a mistake. She then made criticisms about me in her judgment yet the answer to those criticisms were contained in parts of my statement which she did not let me read. During submissions I referred to an authority and when left the other side's legal consultant concerned. Shee then said 'Don't worry. It won't make any difference' comments which indicated bias as a tribunal is composed of two lay members who also have a say. When she said I took breaks like everyone else in her judgment based on simple signatures from other employees (who did not provide witness statements or subject to cross examination, therefore inadmissible evidence) I informed her I would be appealing and would be questioning her impartiality. That decision was unanimous by virtue of her influence and she got the two lay members to vote her way. She let me down very badly that day leaving me very upset. After appealing to the employment appeal tribunal accusing her of bias she responded by denying having ever said 'Don't worry it won't make any difference' with the two lay members also colluding with her to stop my appeal in its tracks. Yes, that letter was sent to the employer and no I didn't query it further in writing but that did not automatically mean it wasn't discussed orally with the employer. This decision still stands but other than a handful of people no one has read it but my review will be read by hundreds of not thousands of people."