Latest news with #tribunal
The Independent
a day ago
- Health
- The Independent
Chef who launched swear-laden rant at colleague paid £13,000 after incident blamed on anxiety
A junior chef who unleashed a profanity-laden tirade in front of spa guests has been awarded over £13,000 after a tribunal concluded her outburst was triggered by anxiety. Abbie Garner was fired after she was overheard shouting 'you f***ing made me love you then you cheated on me, you c***' to a colleague. However, a tribunal ruled the outburst was linked to her disabilities, which included anxiety and depression. She has since been awarded £13,455.91, with £11,000 designated to reflect "the injury to the claimant's feelings as a result of the discrimination found." The incident occurred in front of guests near the spa reception at the four-star Thorpe Hall Hotel and Spa in Peterborough on 9 August 2023. It was sparked by a personal argument with a fellow chef she had been in a relationship with, the tribunal heard. Complaints were made to reception and the chef was called in for a disciplinary. During the disciplinary she gave abrupt responses and asked whether her ex-partner would also be punished. Notes from the hearing recorded her saying: 'I have apologised – what else do you want?' The tribunal ruled that she was disabled under the Equality Act and said her inability to control her anger 'arose in consequence of her disability'. It said: 'The claimant is disabled by virtue of anxiety, depression, and polycystic ovary syndrome. 'The claimant relies on her conduct on August 9, the incident, and August 18, her abrupt responses in the disciplinary meeting, as things arising from her disability. 'Namely an inability to regulate her mood or control her anger due to her disabilities.' It added that Ms Garner 'was put at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone without her disability'. Employment Judge C Lewis concluded the hotel failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments by not seeking medical evidence before dismissing her. 'We are satisfied that it would have been a reasonable adjustment for the respondent to have sought medical evidence,' the tribunal said. 'We find that there was a reasonable prospect this could have led to a different outcome.' The judge found her 'continued employment posed a risk to the respondent's reputation' – but said this did not justify failing to properly consider whether her conduct was linked to her mental health.
Washington Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Bangladesh opens trial of deposed ex-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina
DHAKA, Bangladesh — A special tribunal set up to try Bangladesh's ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina began proceedings Sunday by accepting the charges against humanity filed against her in connection with a mass uprising in which hundreds of students were killed last year. Accepting the charges, the Dhaka-based International Crimes Tribunal directed investigators to produce Hasina, a former home minister and a former police chief before the court on June 16.
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- General
- Daily Mail
Illegal migrant who arrived in the UK in 2000 before being convicted of fraud and imprisoned cannot be deported as she has lived here too long, immigration court rules
An illegal migrant previously convicted of fraud and imprisoned cannot be deported because she has lived in Britain for too long, an immigration court has heard. Joyce Baidoo, 57, has been in the UK without permission since 2000 and was ordered to leave by the Home Office in 2007 after being jailed for 10 months for using false identify documents, according to The Telegraph. But Ms Baidoo has reportedly fought her case to remain in Britain by putting forward the argument that she would struggle to 'reintegrate' back into her home country of Ghana. A judge at an Immigration and Asylum court is believed to have agreed with Ms Baidoo's reasoning and said that the argument was 'very compelling'. The newspaper say the judge also agreed that Ms Baidoo's 'long absence' away from Ghana would lead to 'significant obstacles' upon her re-entry. Despite the Home Office reportedly launching an appeal against the decision, Ms Baidoo won both the first tier and upper tribunal cases. The upper tribunal heard Ms Baidoo believed leaving the UK would have 'a detrimental effect on her mental health'. 'She also said that there would be significant obstacles to her reintegration into Ghanaian culture because of her long absence, the lack of family support and the lack of employment opportunities she would have there. 'She claimed that she would be left destitute, resulting in unjustifiably harsh consequences for her.' First tier tribunal Judge Jeffrey Cameron said earlier this year: 'The evidence before me does indicate that Ms Baidoo on return to Ghana would not have any family support given that her husband has died, and she has no contact with her children. 'Given her age and mental health problems it is unlikely that she would be able to within a reasonable period of time obtain employment and although she may be entitled to some support from the Government by voluntarily agreeing to removal, this would be short-term.' The Home Office allegedly said the tribunal 'failed to provide adequate reasons'. Upper tribunal Judge Richard Manuell said: 'It was not "speculative" of the judge to conclude that Ms Baidoo would be destitute. 'He looked at various factors, including the absence of support and the period of absence, and reached conclusions that were properly reasoned and open to him. 'The judge gave cogent reasons for reaching his conclusions. Proportionality and reasonableness had been fully covered. The onwards appeal should be dismissed. There was no material error of law.'
Telegraph
7 days ago
- General
- Telegraph
Migrants who lie about dissidence can delete social media to return home
Asylum seekers who use social media accounts to falsely demonstrate their opposition to their country's regime can have them deleted to enable them to return home, a tribunal has ruled. Claimants from countries such as Iran and Iraq have been known to start attending demonstrations opposed to their home regimes and posting political statements on Facebook after they arrive in the UK. They then argue that these posts will put them at risk if they are returned to their home countries, which have a history of tracking protesters via their online activities. Now an immigration tribunal has said an asylum seeker can be asked to delete their account in order to return home if it is found the beliefs expressed are not 'genuinely held'. The explanation came in the case of an Iraqi asylum seeker whose application was refused by the Home Office in 2022 on the grounds his credibility was 'adversely affected' by inconsistencies in his account. He appealed to a lower-tier tribunal but his case was dismissed and he was told he could delete his Facebook account, which showed him at various anti-regime protests. The tribunal concluded that the Iraqi had 'no political profile' and his social media had not been monitored by the state so he could delete his account and safely return to Iraq. 'Not a political man' He appealed and claimed he had shown opposition and criticism of his country's government on a Facebook account he opened once he was in the UK. This included videos of him at demonstrations outside the Iraqi embassy, advertising protests linked to a Kurdish support group, and posting about corruption. He argued that these would put him at risk if he returned to the country, where people have previously been targeted for their social media activism. He claimed the lower-tier judge had made a legal error by not considering whether his political opinion was genuine. However, the hearing was also told that he had said in an asylum interview that he was 'not a political man'. The Home Office also argued that there was no evidence the posts had been seen in Iraq, so he was free to delete his account and return. Lucy Murray, an upper-tier tribunal judge, concluded that the lower chamber should have made a ruling on whether the asylum seeker's beliefs were not genuinely held before requiring him to delete his social media account. Because it had not determined this fact, the case needed to be reheard by the first-tier tribunal. Judge Murray said: 'An [asylum seeker] can only be expected to delete their account if it does not reflect a genuine political belief... [His] Facebook posts showed his attendance at a number of demonstrations and posting about corruption in Iraq. That was evidence of political activity. 'It was of course open to the first-tier tribunal to find that these activities were not the expression of a genuine political belief that he would be obliged to conceal to avoid persecution but such a finding was a prerequisite to the conclusion that he could delete his Facebook account.'
Telegraph
28-05-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
NHS trust ‘trying to hide cost of trans doctor tribunal'
An NHS trust embroiled in a tribunal about a trans doctor being allowed to use a female changing room has been criticised for trying to hide its legal bill. David Hamilton, Scotland's information commissioner, said he was 'frustrated' by NHS Fife's response to requests for the costs from the employment tribunal, which was brought by nurse Sandie Peggie. He ruled that the trust did not appear to have undertaken any searches of its own records following the requests, which were lodged under Freedom of Information (FoI) laws. Instead NHS Fife approached the Central Legal Office (CLO), which provides legal advice to NHS Scotland, for the costs. But the board then argued that it did not have to publish the CLO figures as doing so could prejudice its 'interests' in the ongoing tribunal against Ms Peggie. NHS Fife also claimed that their legal expenses did not have to be released under FoI laws because of exemptions which protect personal information, the commercial interests of an organisation and the health and safety of individuals. Mr Hamilton ordered the board to 'carry out further searches' of its own records in order to confirm its legal bill, and warned that he was 'unlikely to be persuaded' that the FoI exemptions it had cited should prevent the publication of the figures. NHS Fife has been given until July 14 to provide a revised response. NHS Fife accused Ms Peggie of misconduct after she challenged the presence of Dr Beth Upton, a transgender woman, in a female changing room at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy. In May last year Ms Peggie submitted a formal claim to an employment tribunal against NHS Fife and Dr Upton for sexual harassment, belief discrimination and victimisation. The nurse complained of being required to share a single-sex space with someone she believed to be male and being victimised for holding the gender-critical belief that biological sex is immutable. NHS Fife has resisted pressure to concede the tribunal after the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case last month that trans women are not women. Earlier this month, the board failed to prevent the public from watching the tribunal online when it restarts in July. NHS Fife also refused three FoI requests for the costs it had incurred fighting the tribunal. Tess White, the equalities spokeswoman for the Scottish Tories, said: 'This is proof that a cynical culture of secrecy has taken hold at NHS Fife. 'Senior staff at the health board are clearly trying to hide the true costs incurred in defending the SNP's unlawful gender policy. This is taxpayers' money that could have gone to the NHS front line.' The three people behind the requests asked Mr Hamilton to intervene and an investigation found that NHS Fife's initial response was not based on its own information, but figures provided by the CLO. The information commissioner is prevented by FoI law from ruling on information that was not available when a request was made – including ruling on whether information must be disclosed. Mr Hamilton said: 'It's extremely frustrating that the action taken by NHS Fife has led to a situation where I am simply unable to rule on the substantive issues at the heart of this case. And, while it is frustrating for me, it will be far more frustrating for those people who sought access to this information. 'In the circumstances, I am only able to require that NHS Fife carry out further searches to identify all information held at the time the request was made and then issue a revised response to the requesters.' The row erupted the day after the SNP Government was ordered to pay the legal costs of the feminist group that won the Supreme Court case on the definition of a woman. A court order issued on Tuesday confirmed that taxpayers will cover costs incurred by For Women Scotland at both the Court of Session and the Supreme Court. The group has previously said it expects to recoup about £250,000 of its £417,000 costs. NHS Fife was approached for comment.
