Justice for Sunday Williams: Review judgment and set up Civil Cases Review Commission

Justice for Sunday Williams: Review judgment and set up Civil Cases Review Commission

0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!
At 100 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!
Sunday Williams started this petition to Rt Hon David Gauke MP, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

My name is Sunday Williams; I am a survival of injustice, institutional injustice and contempt of law in our civil courts. In 2007, I was recruited by Carlisle Support Services (CSS) to work in London Borough of Hackney (Hackney council) Housing department. In 2003, Hackney council terminated CSS and gave the contract to G4S Secure Solutions (G4S) and I was transferred to the latter organisation under the Transfer of Undertaking Protection of Employment (TUPE) Regulations and I continued working in Hackney Housing department till 2017.
In 2016, I took legal action against Hackney council and G4S in the High court. The summary of my case are as follows: Claim 1: Non compliance with statutory guardian; Claim 2: Breach of health and safety laws; Claim 3: Harassment in the course of employment and Claim 4: Violation of my human rights. A High court judge transferred my case to a County court without a hearing or reason. I appealed the transferred on the grounds of my case complexity, financial compensation sought and public concern. While waiting for a respond from the High court, a County court judge decided in writing that its court has jurisdiction over my case; doing so, is outside his jurisdiction because the appeal was in the High court.
Thereafter, another High court judge with the previous judge ordered that my case is suitable in the County court. I appealed again that the County court does not have financial jurisdiction over my case as I would not be able to get full compensation if I won my case because there is a limit to how much you can get in the County court and you are not allowed to re-litigate for the remaining money.
While waiting for a respond from the High court, I applied to the County court to adjourn their forthcoming hearing till we get an outcome of my court jurisdiction appeal in the High court. The County court wrote that the hearing is taking place as arranged. The same County court judge that interfered with my High court appeal was in charge of the hearing. On the day of hearing, he refused to adjourn my case and insisted that its court had jurisdiction. As the hearing progresses he accepted its court did not have jurisdiction over my case but continues to hear the case because he said the High court did not want to hear my case and my case had been staying too long in the court. At the end of the hearing he decided that all my four claims have no merit, none of the defendant is liable for any claim and thrown my case out of court.
Few weeks after the County court hearing I got a letter from the High court that I should resubmit my appeal application. I could not pursue my legitimate case in the High court of competent jurisdiction as a judge in a court that has no jurisdiction has thrown my case out. However, I appealed the County court judgement and at the hearing the appeal judge asked me for the merit of my case. I started with my first claim that the defendants did not comply with statutory guardian. He said they did not have to comply. He stopped me there and did not allow me to talk about the merit of my other claims. At the end of the hearing he decided that my case has no merit and upholds the previous judgment. I appealed the first appeal judgment and the second appeal judge agreed with the decision that my case has no merit and told me not to appeal again. The latter judge made his decision without a hearing and without access to the awaited full judgment and official court transcript of the first appeal.
I cannot cover all the four claims judgment here because of time and space but I would like to talk about the merit of my first claim. The County court judge decided that Hackney council did not have to comply with any statutory guardian because they did not employ me directly; however, the statutory guardian in question is called the Code of Practice on Workforce Matters in Local Authority Service Contracts of 2003 issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minster is for those working in the local authority assignment through their partner or contractor. The County court judge also decided that the local government can deviate from such guardian and the first and second appeal judges agreed. Their decision is contrary to: (a) Parliament legislation in section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999 as amended which say that local authority ‘must have regard’ to any statutory guardian issued by the Secretary of State; (b) paragraphs 1 and 7 to 10, Annex D of the Code of Practice on Workforce Matters in Local Authority Service Contracts of 2003 which says that the guidance should form part of the service specification and conditions where there is ex local authority staff and new joiner in the workforce contract; (c) Hackney council yearly publication issued to the public that they are complying with the statutory guardians and (d) the relevant and established statutory guardian case-law that the local authorities did not have lawful justification for departing from statutory guidance or take a substantial different course as in R v Islington London Borough Council ex parte Rixon [1998] 1CCLR 119 and R v London Borough of Tower Hamlets ex parte X [2013] EWHC 480 (Admin).
The County court judge and the appeal judges had no regard to relevant documents, relevant legislation and binding authorities. They moved the goal post in my case by turning statutory guardian to non statutory guardian, by changing the parliamentary wishes of ‘must have regard’ to may have regard. The judges’ decision downgraded and ignored Parliamentary wishes, removed and denied me my legal and human rights and entitlements.
On liability, the judge decided that Hackney council is not liable for non compliance with the statutory guardian and the two appeal judges agreed. This is contrary to (a) section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999 as amended read in-conjunction with (b) paragraphs 11 to 13 of Annex D of the Code of Practice on Workforce Matters in Local Authority Service Contracts that says the local authority is responsible for informing their partner and contractor and monitoring and enforcing the guardian. And they are liable when their contractor refused to comply with it.
The County court judge also said G4S is not liable for its predecessor breach of contract and the first and second appeal judges accepted it. This is contrary to Regulation 4 of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulation 2006 that transferee is liable for breach or negligence caused by transferor and there is relevant precedent case law in support. The County court judge was silent on G4S liability from 2013 to the date of hearing and that was okay by the first and second appeal judges. The injustice of moving the goal post and the institutional injustice that followed caused me almost ten years of unlawful deduction from my wages and pension on my first claim alone.
Our court is pride to be one of the best in the world but when the High court judge transferred my case from a competent court to a County court that does not have jurisdiction is injustice. When a County court judge denial me justice that is injustice. When the appeal judges look after their own, work with fear and favour and uphold injustice decision that is institutional injustice. Everyone and every institution take their dispute to court yet no independent body is checking our civil courts system when things go wrong like the Criminal Cases Review Commission do with miscarriage of justice in our criminal courts. This case proves there is individual and collective failure of some judges to uphold justice in our civil courts and the Ministry of Justice said they do not have power to do anything about it. That is why I am calling for a review on how the court handle this case and the judges’ decision and to set up an independent body to deal with serious injustice, institutional injustice and contempt of law in our civil courts as from now on. Please share and sign this petition to eliminate injustice, institutional injustice and contempt of law in our civil courts.

0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!
At 100 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!