My last 3 Employment Tribunal claims, for discrimination, victimisation, whistle blowing and unfair dismissal were all unsuccessful. It is my position that my claims were lost not because they lacked merit but rather because of the violations of my right to a fair trial. However, my challenge to the European Court of Human Rights in this regard in relation to the single point of bias by the Tribunal concerning my unfair dismissal, victimisation and whistleblowing claim was unsuccessful.

That said, it was following a Rule 3(10) hearing before the EAT concerning my unfair dismissal, victimisation and whistleblowing claim in May 2021 that the EAT ordered that my appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s decision to dismiss my claim should be allowed to proceed to a full appeal hearing on four of the remaining six grounds of appeal against the Employment Tribunal Judgment.

However, at my request the EAT stayed the above appeal to allow me to first apply to the Employment Tribunal for a reconsideration of its Judgment issued on 13 March 2019 because new evidence had come to light, which shows that the then CEO Ms. Griffiths did indeed take my previous Employment Tribunal claims into consideration when she decided to dismiss me from my post as Associate Director of Transformation. It is because my employment tribunal claims are ‘protected acts” that Ms. Griffiths’ conduct in this regard amounts to victimisation.

It was Ms. Griffiths’ evidence to the Tribunal under oath that she did not take my previous Employment Tribunal claims into account when deciding to dismiss me from my post. In light of the new evidence it was my reconsideration application to the Employment Tribunal that the Employment Tribunal Judgment should be revoked on the grounds that Ms. Griffiths did indeed  victimise me in deciding to dismiss me from my post as Associate Director of Transformation and as such my dismissal is automatically unfair.

The reconsideration hearing took place on 22 February 2022 and 23 February 2022 and the Employment Tribunal Judgment, dismissing my reconsideration application, was made available on 25 February 2022.

On 15 March 2022 I lodged an appeal with the EAT against the Employment Tribunal Judgment dated 25 February 2022 on the sole ground of appeal “A Perverse Judgment”. The Judgment being “perverse” because this is an overwhelming case whereby no reasonable Tribunal would have made the findings of fact that the Balogun Tribunal made based on the evidence before it. It is the case that numerous findings of facts detailed in the Judgment are simply not true.

For example there is no dispute between the parties that Ms. Griffiths’ reference to Employment Tribunal claims in an article published by the Health Service Journal (HSJ) on 8 July 2019, detailing her comments at a roundtable event, was a direct reference to my Employment Tribunal claims. It is a fact that the Respondents’ Counsel, Mr. Kibling, Matrix Chambers, had submitted in writing to an earlier Employment Tribunal in a tribunal claim brought by the BME Network for BSUH for victimisation ( in relation to Ms. Griffiths’ comments as published by the HSJ), that Ms. Griffiths was specifically referring to my Employment Tribunal claims when she made the comment to the HSJ and therefore the BME Network could not bring a claim of victimisation against BSUH or Ms. Griffiths, because it was not about the members of the BME Network.

As such the Respondents’ (including Ms. Griffiths as the Third Respondent) Counsel’s written submission before the Tribunal, which forms the basis of my reconsideration application, confirms that Ms. Griffiths was specifically referring to my employment tribunal claims. However, it is the Tribunal’s finding of fact (see paragraph 9) that it is the Respondents’ Counsel submission that it is Mrs. Griffiths’ reference to “the extremist, very anti-organisational BME structure …..excluding anyone who was LGBT…” in the HSJ article that was a reference to my claim i.e not Ms. Griffiths’ reference to Employment Tribunal cases in the article. It is evident that this ‘finding of fact’ by the Tribunal is not only perverse, but also dishonest.

Another example it is the Tribunal’s ‘finding of fact’ (see paragraphs 15 and 16) that I was asking it [the Tribunal] to infer that Ms. Griffiths’reference to employment tribunal claims was a reference to my employment tribunal claims. To reiterate given the Respondents’ Counsel’s submission makes very clear that Ms. Griffiths’ reference to employment tribunal claims in the article was a reference specifically to my employment tribunal claims then it is evident that this finding of fact by the Tribunal is also not only perverse, but also dishonest.

It is a fact that many more ‘findings of facts’ by the Tribunal as detailed in its Judgment dated 25 February 2022 are both perverse and dishonest.

On 19 July 2022 the EAT ordered that my appeal should be set down for a full appeal hearing and that it should be joined with my other appeal.

Whilst I agree that both appeals should be addressed at the same EAT hearing (because they both relate to my Employment Tribunal claim for unfair dismissal, victimisation and whistleblowing) I also believe that the EAT should be required to issue two EAT Judgments, one for each appeal in order for justice to be done and be seen to be done. This is also further justified by the fact that the grounds of appeals for the two appeals are unrelated.

I have been informed by the EAT that it will be for the Tribunal presiding over the appeals to decide whether there should be one or two EAT judgments from the full appeal hearing.

My fight for justice over the last 5 years since my dismissal in 2017 has been relentless, but I know this battle is not mine it is the Lords and I continue to stand by faith that justice will eventually  prevail.