Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Cunningham stepped down to concentrate on bringing more similar cases. Sounds like her business is booming. Both Peggie and Bailey won on their main count. All the employment cases are secondary to the supreme court decision. Of course we'll have to see where things are in say 5 years time but for now it's clear that the tide has turned quite a bit.

Once again women are allowed their own stuff.

View attachment 11780

The legal arguments are not complete. Dr McCloud has submitted to the ECtHR. The government seems stuck. The only course of action is to wait and see.

In the meantime Tommy Robinson has been removed from Dubai, and Andrew Tate got a pasting in the ring. Some justice in the world.

 

[mickle]

Judge Kemp makes more corrections::

https://assets.publishing.service.g...Jp5y-On7vHaI9Ibdig_aem_dz0x-O0qP-W4-CbuZCqILA

 

[monkers]

Judge Kemp makes more corrections::

View attachment 11781

https://assets.publishing.service.g...Jp5y-On7vHaI9Ibdig_aem_dz0x-O0qP-W4-CbuZCqILA

Thanks, I hadn't previously seen this. Rule 69 correction of slips are not altogether unusual, though eleven is an impressive list. I agree there has been evidence of sloppy typing. Of these eleven corrections, which ones do you believe are justifiable cause to change the outcome? I can then examine those to see if I can find agreement with you.

In a nutshell, if the complainant calls for reconsideration of the case they apply under Rule 69. If they feel the case is flawed on a point of law they apply under Rule 70 to the EAT which is the employment appeal tribunal route. If the complainant has reported they intend to appeal, this would mean they feel the judgment is wrong on points of law, and not solely on the basis of Rule 69 slips.

 

[CXRAndy]

See Peggie legal representation

 

[monkers]

See Peggie legal representation.

Yes that reinforces what I was saying. They don't seem to be applying for a Rule 69 reconsideration (a hearing with the same judge), but are lodging a Rule 70 appeal. That means that they are not arguing that the judgment is flawed on the basis of slip but on a point of law.

My advice is to forget about the slips and instead concentrate on legal basis.

 

[CXRAndy]

My advice is to forget about the slips and instead concentrate on legal basis

The plethora of errors is indicative of a hash of a judgement.

This wasnt just a few minor slips

 

[monkers]

The plethora of errors is indicative of a hash of a judgement.

This wasnt just a few minor slips

Slips are everyday occurrences. There is nothing unusual here save for the number of them.

That an assistant made errors in typing the document, is not alone indicative of a failure of the judge's reasoning.

Accordingly the judgment stands unless or until the EAT overturns it.

 

[Bromptonaut]

They absolutely are minor slips. Far too many and I wonder what typing/proofing arrangements are these days.

When, forty years ago, I was proof reading Tribunal decisions, not in the ET though, I'd have been seriously hauled over the coals for letting those slip through.

Which of them do any of the criticas think actually affect the outcome?

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2003769180240416966