

Copyright © 2016 by Nostaple Limited

All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: This is not a work of fiction. As such, the publisher has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information within this book was correct at time of publication. The publisher does not assume and hereby disclaims any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from accident, negligence, or any other cause. The publisher will be pleased to make good any omissions or rectify any mistakes brought to the publisher's attention at the earliest opportunity. Any views and opinions expressed herein are fully endorsed by the publisher. The publisher will, at the publisher's own expense, defend any claim based upon any lawsuit brought against any content contained within this book.

Licensing Note: No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without the express written consent of the publisher, except in the case of brief excerpts in critical reviews or articles. All inquiries should be addressed to Nostaple Limited, website click here.

First Edition

Other books by Nostaple Limited:

The Justify This series:

Justify This 2006 - 2007

Justify This 2007 - 2008

Justify This 2008 - 2010

Justify This 2010 - 2011

Justify This 2011 - 2015

The Justify This series of books is a blow by blow account of one person's true story of alleged discrimination in the workplace, leading to legal cases against a multinational employer and international countries, through local courts, national courts, international courts, and the United Nations.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 1

"Let the first act of every morning be to make the following resolve for the day:

* I shall not fear anyone on Earth.

* I shall fear only God.

* I shall not bear ill will toward anyone.

* I shall not submit to injustice from anyone.

* I shall conquer untruth by truth. And in resisting untruth, I shall put up with all suffering."

Mahatma Gandhi, 1869-1948

In 1966, I, Kenneth Robert McAlpine, was diagnosed with type one diabetes aged eighteen months. Despite having to inject myself with insulin twice a day, I had managed to obtain a degree in engineering and a master's degree in computing, but for the last two years had been unemployed and fighting an unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim in the Tribunal system.

During the last two years of working at Oracle, I had worked as an On Demand Service Delivery Manager, known as an oSDM, and was the seventh longest serving oSDM in a team of fourteen. I had worked with three other oSDMs on two of the largest accounts in Europe Middle East and Africa, The Environment Agency and General Electric accounts, which amounted to approximately sixty percent of the work covered by the fourteen oSDMs. As I was the only oSDM working simultaneously on both of these very large accounts, I asked my manager and director in December 2005 to be taken off one of the two accounts, as the workload and work conflicts were affecting my health.

In April 2006, unknown to myself, my manager, Phil Snowden, sent an email to a senior director, which Human Resources was copied on, and which read:

"With either option, there is the possibility of Kenneth raising the health/stress issue that he discussed with me in December – the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Simone/Cathy – given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06? If a meeting to discuss this is the best option to move this forward, then please let me know, and I will organise such a meeting."

To which a Senior Human Resources manager, Catherine Temple, replied:

"As Kenneth is on the RIF list, I want to make sure we are not making matters more complicated by trying to bring him back into a customer facing role, which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing (ie: no requirement for back office in the OSDM team). I have no timescales for when redundancies will be actioned at the moment, but assume it will be anytime around end FY06/beginning FY07."

I had taken just two days sick leave in the previous two years, the average person in the UK takes eleven days sick leave every year.

Towards the end of May 2006, I received a phone call from Phil Snowden to attend a meeting at the nearest office. At this meeting, with a senior director I had never met, I was informed I had been provisionally selected for redundancy. I was officially made redundant just over a month later.

I lodged a claim of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination with the Employment Tribunal in August 2006. During the next six months, the respondent would alter their original response a number of times, as they realised how much evidence I had to dispute previous attempts to discredit me. In other words, they were fishing for information before finalising their story.

It was also no surprise that I had received two offers to settle this before it went to a full Tribunal hearing, but both offers were below or around what I could expect for unfair dismissal alone, and the amount a Tribunal can award in discrimination claims is unlimited. So it was an easy decision to refuse both offers.

One thing about multinational companies and multinational legal firms is that there is no shortage of cash, so it was not a surprise when I learned that the respondent would be represented by a London Barrister at the Tribunal hearing.

To my surprise, part of the discrimination claim referred to as reasonable adjustments was thrown out at a Pre-Hearing Review in March 2007. I requested a review that was not granted, and then appealed the decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

There was also a sist for mediation for fifty-one days, requested by the respondent, to allow the respondent and myself to try and mediate and reach a settlement. The respondent did not mediate at all during the whole fifty-one days.

At numerous points before the hearing, I had applied to the Tribunal for a default judgment or for the respondent to be debarred from the proceedings for various reasons.

Shortly before the main hearing was due to commence in early July 2007, there were problems with documents and evidence being altered, witness statements not being signed, and witness statements being far removed from the truth.

During the main discrimination hearing, which lasted three days, I read out my witness statement on the first day, the second day comprised of the respondent's Barrister trying to discredit me in cross-examination, and the third day comprised of the respondent's witnesses, my manager, Phil Snowden, my senior director, Nick Cooper, and senior human resources manager, Catherine Temple, as well as other witness statements.

The main discrimination judgment was dated the 13 September 2007. In the judgment that was delivered over thirty-eight pages, the Tribunal agreed with the story of the respondent that comprised mainly of four witness statements from witnesses employed by the respondent, despite hard factual evidence that disproved the story and the subsequent decisions made in the judgment.

The Tribunal had hard factual evidence that showed I had the job title "Service Delivery Manager", had worked with the Global Service Desk and Customer Incident Managers (CIMs) for two years, I had taken just two days sickness absence in the previous two years, and also had hard factual evidence supplied by the respondent of disability discrimination that  stated:

"With either option, there is the possibility of Kenneth raising the health/stress issue that he discussed with me in December – the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Simone/Cathy – given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

"As  Kenneth is on the RIF list, I want to make sure we are not making matters more complicated by trying to bring him back into a customer facing role, which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing...."

Despite this hard factual evidence, the respondent managed to create a story whereby I was in a one-off job role, that a senior manager I had never met before, Malcolm Thompson, placed me on the Reduction In Force (RIF) list, and who never knew of my diabetes. Malcolm Thompson never attended the Tribunal.

I also raised concerns before, during and after the Tribunal that the respondent had altered documents to suit their story, but the judgment stated that I was not "a credible witness in many aspects of his evidence", and the Citizens Advice Bureau stated that this was the Tribunal calling me a liar. The Tribunal dismissed the concerns raised regarding altered documents:

"We concluded from the above that the claimant's allegation was unfounded and that the respondent had not deliberately altered, amended or removed documentation from the bundle of productions"

The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal part of the claim:

"We were satisfied the requirements of the respondent's business for employees to carry out the role the claimant did, had ceased or diminished with the introduction of the global service desk and CIMs. The claimant's role was redundant."

The Tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination part of the claim:

"We were satisfied, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, that the reason for the claimant's selection for redundancy (the alleged less favourable treatment) was because the respondent's need for employees to carry out the limited oSDM role which the claimant performed, had ceased or diminished. The claimant had been unable to discharge the burden placed on him to show his selection for redundancy related to his disability, and in the circumstances that aspect of his claim must fail. We dismissed this claim."

After emailing Diabetes UK requesting help, I received an email reply on 10 October 2007 stating that Diabetes UK would pass it on to one of their lawyers who would act in a pro bono capacity and help me.

I immediately made contact with this pro bono lawyer in London and sent two lever arch folders full of witness statements and evidence as well as my story and where the various parts of this case were in the legal system.

The London lawyer, due to her background in healthcare and product liability litigation managed to get in touch with a lawyer in Glasgow who specialised in Employment Law and was willing to take my case on in a pro bono capacity.

Michael McLaughlin was the pro bono lawyer in Glasgow who was a senior partner in Biggart Bailli, a law firm with offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and I quickly had a three hour meeting to inform Michael of some of the details in this case, and to thrash out appeal points for the forthcoming reasonable adjustments hearing and the lodging of an appeal concerning the main disability discrimination appeal.

On 24 October 2007, I picked up the main disability discrimination appeal at Michael McLaughlin's Office and delivered it in person at the Employment Appeal Tribunal Offices in Edinburgh, a round trip of four hours, but worth every minute to make sure it was delivered in person.

The first point of this appeal concerned the emails written on 11 and 12 April 2006, which state that diabetes will result in long periods of absence in the future and to exit me from the business. This was direct disability discrimination as it was less favourable treatment on the grounds of disability.

The second appeal point again concerned the email of 12 April 2006 in that because this email states that I am to be exited from business some seven weeks before I was provisionally selected for redundancy, the redundancy process was a sham.

The third point of this appeal concerned witness collusion. Many of the witnesses had read each other's witness statements, and as such could have tailored or fine tuned their story to match the stories of other witnesses.

The final appeal point stated that the 7 February 2006 Reduction In Force list had a column titled "Required Exit Date" that had a date filled in, and as such, termination of my employment was preordained some four months before redundancy consultation had started.

After my initial meeting with the pro bono lawyer, Michael McLaughlin, an appeal was sent to the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal concerning the reasonable adjustments part of my case.

The appeal focussed on one extremely important point, as the Tribunal had dismissed my reasonable adjustments case because I had not lodged a grievance, and as I was dismissed, the statutory grievance procedure did not apply because the statutory dismissal procedure should have been followed. The reasonable adjustments case was also not time barred, as it had been an ongoing act of discrimination that started in December 2005 and was linked to my dismissal in July 2006 by the emails of 12 and 13 April 2006.

On 7 November 2007 I conducted my reasonable adjustments appeal hearing in front of Lady Smith who was acting as sole judge in this hearing.

I outlined in my appeal that due to my reasonable adjustments discussion with my manager, Philip Snowden, in December 2005, and the reference to 'December' in the email which stated diabetes, future sickness absences and exit me from the organisation, the statutory grievance procedure did not apply as I was dismissed, and the reasonable adjustments claim could not be time barred as it was an ongoing act of discrimination that started in December 2005 and ended with my dismissal in July 2006.

The judge, Lady Smith, dismissed the appeal and agreed with the original Employment Tribunal decision that the statutory grievance procedure applied.

The respondent had applied for costs of £10,000, and on 11 January 2008, a costs hearing took place at the Glasgow Employment Tribunal. The respondent claimed that my conduct during the case had been unreasonable and that my allegation that documents had been altered should alone result in a costs order against me.

Michael McLaughlin outlined that I had not acted unreasonably, and if any party had acted unreasonably it was the respondent. It was also not unreasonable to state that documents had been altered when they had been altered.

The judgment of the Glasgow Employment Tribunal would be sent out in writing in the near future.

During January and February 2008 I continued to contact as many organisations and people who could help me as possible, but continually met with rejections or dead ends.

On 15 February 2008, I finally received the judgment of the Glasgow Employment Tribunal who had awarded expenses against me of £3,700, in effect fining me. An Employment Tribunal only awards expenses against a party in less than one percent of cases.

On 20 February 2008, after one month of trying to lodge an appeal at the Court of Session in Edinburgh in time, I decided to take this appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, as the Court of Session had sent me out three wrong forms and now wanted me to pay for lodging a late appeal that the judges may not accept.

On 26 March 2008, I lodged an appeal against the award of £3,700 in costs against me to the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal. The appeal was based solely on the grounds of perversity.

The first appeal point concerned the award of £3,000 for not taking legal advice, and as you can represent yourself at Tribunals, I simply asked where in the Employment Tribunals Constitution and Rules does it state that a claimant must take legal advice.

The second point of the appeal concerned the award of £700 for stating that the respondent had altered documents, and as the judgment had stated that the respondent "had not deliberately altered documents", I simply asked why the term "not deliberately altered" had been used, as this implies that the Tribunal believed the respondent had altered documents.

On 29 April 2008, myself, my family and three lawyers had travelled through to the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal for the Rule 3(10) Hearing in front of Lady Smith alone, but we all learned ten minutes before the hearing was due to start that it had been cancelled.

Around two months later the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal for the Rule 3(10) Hearing on disability discrimination finally took place on 20 June 2008 with the judge Lady Smith sitting in judgment alone. This was a tense and terse hearing between the Solicitor, Michael McLaughlin, and Lady Smith, with the Solicitor, myself and family coming out looking shell shocked.

Early in August 2008, Diabetes UK sent me a letter clearly stating that they were unable to support me any further in my case.

On 12 August 2008, I lodged a reasonable adjustments case against the United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights. This case was mainly based on the right to a fair hearing when the previous reasonable adjustment cases had been thrown out because a grievance had not been lodged when a grievance was not required to be lodged because it was a dismissal and the dismissal procedure should have been followed rather than the grievance procedure.

Two days later the Information Commissioner's Office sent me a review of my complaint against their original decision in which they explained that they agreed with the earlier decision made by the Information Commissioner's Office that I was not entitled to any redundancy information, so I was, therefore, unable to uncover whether redundancy information had been sent to the Insolvency Service or not, and therefore whether there had actually been a collective redundancy, or if it was just me that had been made redundant due to my diabetes.

Around this time I was also looking to get representation from an Advocate (lawyer who has access rights in front of the highest judges in the highest court) for the appeal to the Court of Session, the highest court in Scotland, and paid for the services of law firm Hamilton Burns who requested the opinion of an Advocate.

On 18 August 2008 the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal refused me leave to appeal to the Court of Session, however, this is only a step that you have to go through to eventually appeal to the Court of Session, and doesn't mean that you cannot appeal.

Ten days later I received the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment by Lady Smith on disability discrimination where she had dismissed all appeal points on the disability discrimination case and witness collusion, so now I had to appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session, which I now did.

On 6 November 2008 the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal heard my appeal against the costs of £3700 awarded against me at the Glasgow Employment Tribunal by judge Lucy Crone. This hearing was heard by the President of the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, who was based in London, but had flown up because Lady Smith was unavailable.

Later that same month I received the Advocates opinion which was completely negative on the chances of any of the eleven appeal points succeeding at the Court of Session, and had to pay £1000 for the opinion in writing.

It was now 2009, and the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal issued a judgment by the president of the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, The Honourable Mr Justice Elias, who stated that the appeal had failed. The reason given was that I should have taken the free legal advice offered and paid for by Oracle Corporation UK Limited, and because I didn't, this was unreasonable behaviour punished by a £3000 fine. It has always been my argument, an argument that will never change, that no-one should, under any circumstance, accept legal advice from a lawyer paid for by your opponent. Whose interests would that lawyer really be representing?

On 10 February 2009 the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal refused me leave to appeal to the Court of Session regarding the costs appeal, so I most definitely appealed anyway.

Over the next few months, I wrote a few letters to the Scottish Parliament but received no help with the explanation that they could not get involved in judicial decisions. I also started to question why on earth Oracle Corporation UK Limited could be represented at a hearing in the Inner House of the Court of Session when I was appealing a decision made in a judgment by the Employment Appeal Tribunal?

I also asked my Member of Parliament for help, and she wrote to various government departments and ministers, including the Ministry of Justice in the United Kingdom parliament and Minister for Community Safety in the Scottish parliament, but no help was offered or given.

On 29 May 2009, I attended a very short hearing at the Inner House of the Court of Session, where I had to represent myself against the Advocate Douglas Fairley who was representing Oracle Corporation UK Limited. The three judges heard Mr Fairley for most of this time and informed me if I understood what I had to do at the next hearing, to which I replied yes.

At the next hearing at the Inner House of the Court of Session, a two-hour hearing, Mr Fairley, acting for Oracle Corporation UK Limited, addressed the Court in support of his objection to the competency of the application for one and a half hours, and I spoke for around twenty minutes. Another hearing was scheduled for a full day hearing, date to be arranged.

Chapter 2

It was now 27 January 2010 and I had travelled through to Edinburgh to the Court of Session for the final one-day hearing. This chapter and the following chapter are mainly based on the Law and Merits documents lodged with the Court of Session in 2009 and notes taken by Andrew McAlpine who attended the hearing.

COURT OF SESSION

INNER HOUSE

EXTRA DIVISION

Continued hearing of one day.

XA165/08

Appeal under section 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996

Kenneth McAlpine v Oracle Corporation UK Limited

Appellant - Party litigant

Respondent - Mr. Fairley of Counsel; McGrigors Solicitors LLP

Judges:

Lord Clark

Lord Osborne

Lady Dorrian

Start Time: 10:40 a.m.

Lord Osborne, "This is a continuation of what was earlier heard - respond to criticisms made."

Counsel asks for clarification as to how to proceed. Elaborate in a general outline, this is an Application for leave to appeal, same chronology with regard to substance. The test must show probable cause and a genuine point of law. I refer to Campbell v Dunoon Housing 1137 1st Column letter C (gives handout) where the court indicated that:

"applicants for leave to appeal must generally show something of the nature of probabilis causa in relation to a genuine point of law which is of some practical consequence".

The original Tribunal claim was in two parts.

The first part was unfairly selected due to discrimination with regard to disability, type 1 diabetes, and the second part related to direct discrimination and indirect disability discrimination. The Tribunal found no causal connection (Counsel refers Judges to the Glasgow Employment Tribunal written judgement  paragraph 178):

"We were satisfied, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, that the reason for the claimant's selection for redundancy (the alleged less favourable treatment) was because the respondent's need for employees to carry out the limited oSDM role which the claimant performed, had ceased or diminished. The claimant had been unable to discharge the burden placed on him to show his selection for redundancy related to his disability, and in the circumstances that aspect of his claim must fail. We dismissed this claim."

Counsel also refers Judges to paragraphs  151 and  171 and the  page 37 conclusions:

"151. We next considered the claimant's argument that redundancy had not been the real reason for his dismissal and that in fact he had been selected for redundancy because he was diabetic and/or because he had requested changes to his workload because of his diabetes. We have set out in detail our considerations regarding these matters below. In summary, we were entirely satisfied that the claimant's selection for redundancy was based on the fact there was no longer a requirement for his role, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact of the claimant's diabetes or any changes that had been requested regarding his role."

"171. The correct comparator in cases of direct discrimination is a person who does not have that particular disability, but whose circumstances are not materially different from those of the disabled person. We considered that an appropriate comparator in this case would be a person carrying out the same limited oSDM role as the claimant, whose circumstances in terms of health were not materially different from those of the claimant. We considered whether the respondent would have treated that person differently. We decided the respondent would similarly have selected that person for redundancy. We reached that decision after having been satisfied that the requirements of the respondent's business for employees to carry out the limited oSDM role had ceased or diminished with the introduction of the global service desk and the CIMs. We were entirely satisfied that it was the role which was redundant, and accordingly the person occupying the role -be that the claimant or a comparator - would be selected for redundancy. We decided, for these reasons, to dismiss the claim of direct discrimination."

Counsel states that the reason, less favourable treatment with regard to a limited oSDM role, is it must fail.

Counsel then turns to the leave to appeal:

Counsel, "The first ground is as per  paragraph 4 of the Glasgow Employment Tribunal written judgment and as at appeal point 5.3 with regard to "the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure", that cannot form......"

Lord Osborne, (interrupts), "Appeal point elaborates further on?"

Counsel, "Yes, with regard to "stereotypical assumption" and "is direct discrimination". The short answer is that it doesn't matter, there is not any truth in it."

Lord Clark, "Any truth is important."

Counsel, "Both failed for the same reason."

Lord Clark, "No factual basis re. generalised as to how he was treated as an employee."

Counsel, "No evidence with regard that."

Lord Osborne, "Looking at paragraphs  151 and  171, 151 is clear in what is said."

Counsel, "The real reason is with regard to the changes of workload, a different job, there was no longer a requirement for the role."

Lord Osborne, "Conclusion on a matter of fact, in paragraph  171 it is put differently."

Counsel, "There must be a causal relationship."

Lord Clark, "It says that at paragraph  172, that is what I was saying earlier."

Counsel, "Paragraph  178 and the conclusions refer to the global element."

Lord Clark, "With regard to the second claim at paragraph  172 the Tribunal poses the question with regard to Clark v Novocold on the issue of causation and paragraph  178 is answering that question."

Counsel, "Answering it in the same way. The difficulty is with regard to probable cause and findings in fact. The last part of the Campbell v Dunoon Housing is a moot point. What Lady Smith says is that it has no possible chance of success.  Paragraph 4 of the judgment and appeal points 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 are with regard to sections of the Disability Discrimination Act. There is no probable cause given with regard to these appeal points and they are wholly disruptive."

Lord Osborne, "5.2, 5.3 and 5.4, the way it is put with regard to specific findings, it is not clear as to what findings, by whom and not in a position to make specific findings."

Lord Clark, "Seems to be with regard to sending back to the Tribunal regarding their misdirection."

Counsel, "Doesn't matter, the moot point is in finding points of law. Appeal point 5.1 is with regard to the ET3, there is no error of law regarding accepting it before four days of evidence."

Lord Osborne, "It is a procedural point but 1(5)b is not ET3."

Counsel, "It was repealed, found a copy."

Counsel, "Rule 4(5) may include a response:

(5) A single document may include the response to more than one claim if the relief claimed arises out of the same set of facts, provided that in respect of each of the claims to which the single response relates:

(a) the respondent intends to resist all the claims and the grounds for doing so are the same in relation to each claim; or

(b) the respondent does not intend to resist any of the claims."

Counsel, "It is clear that the respondent did resist all of the claims."

Lord Clark, "Is there anything about it being raised? – never raised – not with Lady Smith."

Counsel, "It may have been raised at the Pre-Hearing review."

Lord Osborne, "Respondent may put in their way a procedure for excluding but there is no restriction on what can be put forward."

Lord Clarke, "It was lodged within 28 days?"

Counsel then begins to look for a copy.

Appellant interjects.

Appellant, "Counsel is taking up most of the time. He already spoke for two hours at the last hearing and I was to be given this hearing to respond."

Lord Osborne, (disdaining), "Mr. McAlpine, you will have time. All the time that you need."

Counsel, "I don't know what date the ET3 was lodged but there were two Case Management Discussions and there was no suggestion of a complaint about the ET3 at both."

Counsel, "It falls short of the Campbell v Dunoon Housing test. I have dealt with 5.3 and 5.4. Appeal point 5.5 is with regard to the job title and is contrary to the evidence, it is a challenge on a question of fact.  Paragraph 19 of the Employment Tribunal written judgement deals with the content of the role:

"19. The claimant, notwithstanding the above, argued that his role as an oSDM had been the same as that of the other oSDMs. We preferred the respondent's evidence regarding this matter and we found as a matter of fact that although the claimant's job title was oSDM, he in fact performed only a small part of that job restricted to expediting support and preparing the EA report. In making this finding we took into account the evidence of Mr Snowden, Mr Cooper and the witness statements of Mr Winters and Mr Marsden."

It says that "We preferred the respondent's evidence" and regarding his job title "he in fact performed only a small part of that job"

Lord Clark, "5.5 seems to be about an unfair procedure. It cites Article 6 regarding a fair hearing and which evidence they preferred."

Lady Dorrian, "Paragraph 19 sets out the basis on what they based that on. The Court can interfere."

Counsel, "It was not raised before Lady Smith when represented by a solicitor. I would refer you to Rule 14 in Harvey's volume 4 r.2060 (unclear) with regard to the Tribunal Judge conducting a Tribunal as sees fit and also to the fact that there could have been cross-examination of the two witnesses."

Counsel, "With regard to appeal point 5.6 and "taken as read", tribunals in England...."

Lady Dorrian, (interrupts), "Was it not agreed as in  paragraph 8(d)?"

Counsel, "It was agreed, there was no objection."

Lord Osborne, "It doesn't exclude cross-examination."

Counsel, "There were two witnesses not called at all but there were three witnesses who could have been cross-examined."

Lady Dorrian, "What of the witnesses who were not called?"

Counsel, reads out  paragraph 11 of the Employment Tribunal written judgement:

"11. We should state that in addition to the evidence we heard, we were also referred to various witness statements including the claimant's witness statements; Mr Andrew Hammett who had been working for the Environment Agency in January 2005 as Technical Manager; Mr Philip Snowden; Mr Nicholas Cooper; Ms Catherine Temple; Ms Fiona Vickers, an oSDM with the respondent, who also has type 1 diabetes; Ms Simone Harch; Mr William Gemmell, who informed the claimant of his potential redundancy; Mr Richard Marsden, who was an oSDM on the EA account and Mr Fran Winters, who was lead oSDM on the GE account."

Counsel, "Tribunal was referred to witness statements of those witnesses not called."

Lord Clark, "An appeal would have to make it clear whether this was intentional and to the potential unfairness of it all."

Counsel, "It was consistent with Rule 14(3):

(3) The chairman or tribunal (as the case may be) shall make such enquiries of persons appearing before him or it and of witnesses as he or it considers appropriate and shall otherwise conduct the hearing in such manner as he or it considers most appropriate for the clarification of the issues and generally for the just handling of the proceedings.

Counsel, "Appeal point 5.7 is about collusion. It cites Article 6 and about referring findings to the Procurator Fiscal."

Lady Dorrian, "When grouped with other appeal points it is about perverting the course of justice."

Counsel, "Appeal points 5.8 and 5.9 were not raised before, 5.10 was raised."

Lady Dorrian, "5.10 was the only one and none of them were raised before Lady Smith."

Counsel, "They were not raised and there is an absence of a prima facia case with regard to Campbell v Dunoon."

Lord Osborne, "The Tribunal is quite clear on the evidence it heard and the decision it reached."

Counsel, "The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondents which was credible and reliable."

Counsel, "5.10 was raised but not at the Employment Appeal Tribunal sift. Paragraphs  125 and  126 of the Employment Tribunal written judgment deals with the altered documents as did also  paragraph  8(g). Tribunal found that the documents were not deliberately altered, a hard copy was requested but claimant refused to do so, claimant went through each document, and the respondent had printed off an electronic copy. The finding was that they were not deliberately altered.

Lord Clark, "Make a finding?"

Counsel, "A specific finding. It was addressed but fell short of the Campbell test."

Counsel, "Appeal point 5.11 is with regard to the heads of loss withdrawal being wrong in law. The claimant sought to depart from this during the Tribunal hearing. It was ultimately dismissed and with regard to the dismissal of the claim, re. whether it should be done orally or by written application, a Head of Loss is not a claim and should be treated in the same way."

Counsel, "Lady Smith was correct in refusing leave to appeal."

Counsel ends his submissions at 12.10 p.m.

Appellant begins with preliminary matters, which have arisen from and since the last Hearing:

1. The Appellant requests that this Court notes in the written judgement that Counsel for the Respondent referred three times to the Appellant not being a credible witness during the hearing on 26 June 2009.

2. The Appellant requests that this Court notes in the written judgement that Counsel for the Respondent referred to the Appellant as a vexatious litigant during the hearing on 26 June 2009.

As the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 Rule 37 subsection (3) states:

37 Appeals from Appeal Tribunal.

(3) No appeal lies from a decision of the Appeal Tribunal refusing leave for the institution or continuance of, or for the making of an application in, proceedings by a person who is the subject of a restriction of proceedings order made under section 33.

With reference to the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 section 33, can Counsel for the Respondent produce "a restriction of proceedings order" or "A copy of a restriction of proceedings order published in the Edinburgh Gazette." for this Court?

Has Counsel misled this Court?

Appellant, "Can Counsel withdraw this now?"

Lord Osborne, "Mr. McAlpine, there is no suggestion that we would consider you as a vexatious litigant."

Counsel, at first, seemed to deny that he was present at the 26 June 2009 hearing but he was corrected by Lady Dorrian.

Counsel, "I never referred to him as a vexatious litigant."

3. As Counsel for the Respondent conceded during the hearing on 26 June 2009 that appeal points 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6 were ventilated at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, does the Appellant have to cover these appeal points today?

Lord Osborne, "You have to address the appeal points."

4. Victimisation. Respondent has threatened me with bailiffs, handout 5.

Lord Osborne, "Is there a debt?"

The Appellant explains with regard to the £3700 costs.

Counsel, "At the Employment Appeal Tribunal costs hearing Justice Alias said that it had no prospects of success."

Lord Osborne, "Are you aware of any appeal?"

Counsel, "What happened in the lodging of the appeal?"

Lord Osborne, "The award of costs appeal by Justice Alias?"

Appellant explains with regard to his costs appeal lodged at the Court of Session and of it being a dependent appeal, the main appeal, this appeal today, being the live appeal until it is disposed of, as stated by the Court of Session.

Lord Osborne, "Therefore, what are you saying now?"

Appellant, "They could have asked the question about an appeal, instead they threatened me and my family. I had lodged an appeal."

Lord Osborne, "They made an assumption. I have noted that."

Appellant, "I shall now proceed with the Law and Merits taken together."

Lord Osborne, "The document prepared for the 26 June 2009?"

Appellant, "Yes."

Appellant begins to read from the Law document and is interrupted by Counsel who asks for a copy. This is given.

Appellant, (refers to appeal point 5.1), "This appeal point is in another Court. Can I proceed?"

Lord Osborne, "This Hearing is about seeking leave to appeal. It is for you to persuade us on points of law. You should understand this."

* 5.1

The Appellant would request a specific finding on whether the Respondent's ET3 should have been accepted in accordance with Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004, Schedule 1, Rule 1(5)(b).

This appeal point is currently part of an appeal in The European Court of Human Rights, and the Appellant will require some clarification from The Court of Session on whether the Appellant can discuss this appeal point at the Court of Session?

The basis of this appeal point is that the Respondent's ET3 Form should not have been accepted by the Employment Tribunal in its current form, because it has not been completed correctly.

The Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004, Schedule 1, Rule 1(5)(b), page 501 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

(b) if the claimant was an employee of the respondent and the claim consists only of a complaint that the respondent has dismissed the claimant or has contemplated doing so, the information in paragraphs (4)(h) and (i) is not required;

The Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004, Schedule 1, Rule 1(4)(h) and 1(4)(i), page 501 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

(h) whether or not the claimant has raised the subject matter of the claim with the respondent in writing at least 28 days prior to presenting the claim to an Employment Tribunal Office;

(i) if the claimant has not done as described in (h), why he has not done so.

If the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004, Schedule 1, Rule 1(5)(b) clearly states that the information regarding raising a grievance is not required, why did the Respondent state in the  ET3 Form "Has the substance of this claim been raised by the claimant in writing under a grievance procedure? No"

This point was first raised at the Employment Appeal Tribunal at the Rule 3(10) Hearing concerning reasonable adjustments on 7 November 2007, where the Appeal stated Lawrence v HM Prisons (2007) IRLR 468 which states "It would create considerable difficulties if the dismissal procedural had to be complied with for the purpose of dealing with the act of dismissal itself whilst issues relating to the manner or reason for the dismissal such as whether it was in breach of discrimination provisions had to be the subject to a separate grievance and be resolved according to a different set of procedural rules. I see no merits at all in having the complaint about dismissal being carved up in this way, with different procedures having to be utilised for different elements of the employee's complaint." and also stated "Neither of the grievance procedures applies when the grievance is that the employer has dismissed or is contemplating dismissing the employee".

Lord Osborne, "Does that matter? The Tribunal had no complaint before it."

Appellant, "They threw it out."

Lord Osborne, "On a point of law?"

Lord Clark, "We are bound by previous decisions as per Campbell v Dunoon Housing, I remind you to keep your mind addressed on this, you point to things but do not test them, you must appreciate this and persuade the Judges with regard to points of law."

Appellant, "It was a perverse decision."

Lord Osborne, "The issue about dismissal, there was never any dispute with regard to dismissal."

Appellant, "Part of the claim was thrown out."

Lord Osborne, "We can only consider the law. Move on."

* 5.2

The Appellant would request a specific finding on whether the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal findings were prohibited by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as the Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) was fully aware of the Appellant's disability.

In the Employment Tribunal, both the claim and the judgment stated:

"Mr Kenneth McAlpine (Claimant) v Oracle Corporation UK Ltd (Respondent)"

In the Employment Appeal Tribunal, both the appeal and the judgment stated:

"Mr K McAlpine (Appellant) v Oracle Corporation UK Limited (Respondent)"

In the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment,  page 65 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"We were satisfied (i) that at the time Mr Thompson put the claimant's name on the RIF list he did not know of his diabetes;"

In the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment,  page 67 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"We were not prepared to accept that mere mention of the fact the claimant had diabetes was sufficient to link the subsequent treatment to the claimant's disability."

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part VII, Section 58(1), page 503 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

58.— Liability of employers and principals.

(1) Anything done by a person in the course of his employment shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as also done by his employer, whether or not it was done with the employer's knowledge or approval.

The Appellant had imparted knowledge of the Appellant's disability to the Respondent "Oracle Corporation UK Ltd". The onus of disseminating that knowledge of disability to relevant employees therefore shifts to the Respondent.

How could the Appellant inform Malcolm Thompson of the Appellant's disability, if the Appellant has never ever met or communicated with Malcolm Thompson?

The Respondent "Oracle Corporation UK Ltd" (the employer), is responsible for anything done by it's employees in the course of their employment, including any knowledge of the Appellant's disability, any emails sent by employees and any stereotypical assumptions made by employees.

Malcolm Thompson's lack of knowledge of the Appellant's disability was not a reason to dismiss the direct disability discrimination that happened.

Appellant, "Appeal point 5.2 is with regard to the fact that Oracle knew of my diabetes."

Lord Clark, "What is the materiality of this? The difficulty is that there was a merger reorganisation and a redundancy. That is the problem that you have. You have to subvert the redundancy factor, it is a high hurdle to clear but it is basic to the case as it was a redundancy and not your disability that led to dismissal."

Appellant, "They were discussing my diabetes and about exiting me from the organisation because of my diabetes?"

Lord Clark, "That is a criticism of fact, that it had no connection is an issue of fact. It is not open to us to entertain any facts on question."

Lord Osborne, "If it is a question of law we can interfere."

Court adjourns for lunch at 1 p.m.

Court resumes at 1.55 p.m.

All the appeal points from 5.3 to 5.11 in the Law document were read out by the Appellant without any further interruptions by any of the Judges.

* 5.3

The Appellant would request a specific finding on whether the phrase:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

constitutes a stereotypical assumption according to the Disability Rights Commission, Code of Practice, Employment and Occupation, Section 4.8, and as such, is direct discrimination as stated in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part II, Section 3A(5).

The Appellant would also request a specific finding on whether discrimination has taken place, and if so, whether this constitutes a violation of The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 14.

The Employment Tribunal judgment, page 66 and page 67 of the Court of Session Appendix shows the reasons why the Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims of disability discrimination, and I would refer this Court to paragraphs  171,  177 and  178 for their full terms.

 Page 84 (Employment Appeal Tribunal Judgment Rule 3(10) Hearing) of the Court of Session Appendix confirms:

"Secondly, the three emails of 11,12 and 13 April 2006 between Mr Thompson, Ms Temple and Mr Snowden were of such weight as to show the Tribunal could only have concluded, firstly, that the claimant was dismissed because of his diabetes; and secondly that the decision to make him redundant had been made before any attempt at consultation was made."

Page 103 (Note of Appeal Employment Appeal Tribunal Rule 3(7)) of the Court of Session Appendix further confirms:-

"Largely, on the basis of this email, the Appellant maintained that the reason for his selection for redundancy was his diabetes and its potential to cause him to be off work. In addition, he maintained his selection on the basis of his diabetes was direct discrimination in terms of the DDA."

Page 116 (Note of Appeal EAT Rule 3(7)) of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"The dismissal was therefore unfair in terms of s98 of the Employment Rights Act and in breach of sections 3A(1) and 3A(5) of the DDA."

The Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment, page 85 of the Court of Session Appendix shows the reasons why the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal of disability discrimination, and I would refer this Court to paragraphs  18 and  19 for their full terms.

The Disability Rights Commission, Code of Practice, Employment and Occupation, Section 4.8, Page 504 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"4.8 Consequently, if the less favourable treatment occurs because of the employer's generalised, or stereotypical, assumptions about the disability or its effects, it is likely to be direct discrimination. This is because an employer would not normally make such assumptions about a non-disabled person, but would instead consider his individual abilities."

The stereotype was "diabetes", and the assumption was "prolonged period of time off due to illness", an assumption of future illness, which was not based on any historical fact.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part II, Section 3A(5), Page 505 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"(5) A person directly discriminates against a disabled person if, on the ground of the disabled person's disability, he treats the disabled person less favourably than he treats or would treat a person not having that particular disability whose relevant circumstances, including his abilities, are the same as, or not materially different from, those of the disabled person."

The Employment Tribunal judgment, page 66 of the Court of Session Appendix at paragraph  171 used the wrong Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part II, Section 3A(5) comparator by using a comparator "whose circumstances in terms of health were not materially different from those of the claimant."

The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 14, Page 507 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."

The Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the main direct disability discrimination claim for two completely different reasons. The Employment Tribunal dismissed the main direct disability discrimination claim for the reason that the Appellant had a "limited oSDM role". The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the main direct disability discrimination claim for the reason that "He was on the list prior to any exchanges which mentioned his health.".

Case Law

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham v Farnsworth [2000] EAT 461_99_1506

Tudor v Spen Corner Veterinary Centre Ltd and anor, ET Case No. 2404211/05

Cox v Careeragent Ltd t/a Bells Toyota, ET Case No.1700896/98

* 5.4

The Appellant would request a specific finding on whether, allegedly, being on a "RIF list" (Reduction In Force) takes precedence over the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part II, Section 3A(5), or whether the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part II, Section 3A(5) takes precedence over a "RIF List".

In the Employment Tribunal judgment,  page 65 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"169.... We were satisfied (i) that at the time Mr Thompson put the claimant's name on the RIF list he did not know of his diabetes; "

The Employment Appeal Tribunal Rule 3(10) Hearing, Notes of Argument document, page 91 of the Court of Session Appendix stated: "The case turned almost entirely on the Tribunal's finding in fact that Malcolm Thompson placed the Claimant on the RIF list in February 2006 and when he did so he had no knowledge that the Claimant had diabetes. There was no evidence whatsoever before the tribunal that would have entitled them to reach this conclusion."

In the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment,  page 86 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"He was on the list prior to any exchanges which mentioned his health. He was on the list prior to intimation of his potential redundancy being made to him."

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part II, Section 3A(5), Page 505 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

(5) A person directly discriminates against a disabled person if, on the ground of the disabled person's disability, he treats the disabled person less favourably than he treats or would treat a person not having that particular disability whose relevant circumstances, including his abilities, are the same as, or not materially different from, those of the disabled person.

Are the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal seriously suggesting that being on a Reduction In Force (RIF) list gives any Respondent (the employer) the right to directly discriminate against any Appellant (the employee)?

If they are, then we may as well destroy the sex, race, disability, age and any other discrimination acts, as employers can freely discriminate against employees, as long as the employer places the employee on a RIF list.

* 5.5

The Appellant would request a specific finding on whether the findings in 'fact' of the Tribunal that "we found as a matter of fact that although the claimant's job title was oSDM, he in fact performed only a small part of that job" is totally contrary to the evidence, the ET1 and ET3, and whether this is contrary to Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Rule 3(1) and contrary to Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 Rule 2A(1), and whether this constitutes a violation of The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1).

The Employment Tribunal judgment, page 66 and page 67 of the Court of Session Appendix shows the reasons why the Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims of disability discrimination stating that the Appellant performed a limited oSDM role, and I would refer this Court to paragraphs  171,  177 and 178 for their full terms.

In the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment, page 81 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"Put briefly, the facts found by the Tribunal which led to the foregoing conclusion were as follows. Although the claimant was employed as an on-demand service manager, there were many elements of that role which he did not carry out."

The Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Rule 3(1), Page 508 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"3. - (1) The overriding objective of these regulations and the rules in Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is to enable tribunals and chairmen to deal with cases justly."

The Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 Rule 2A(1), Page 509 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"2A (1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Appeal Tribunal to deal with cases justly."

The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1), Page 510 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

The manner in which the Employment Tribunal have dealt with the facts of the Appellant's role are so clearly wrong that it constitutes an error of law.

The Appellant has not had a just or fair hearing if the Employment Tribunal has made a finding that is contrary to the weight of evidence.

* 5.6

The Appellant would request a specific finding on whether directing that all of one parties witness statements are "taken as read", is inequitable, and as such is unfair, and whether this is contrary to Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Rule 3(1) and contrary to Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 Rule 2A(1), and whether this constitutes a violation of The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1).

In the Employment Tribunal judgment,  page 34 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"8(d) The respondent had, by agreement, produced witness statements. The Chairman directed the statements would not be taken as read, but upon reconsideration - given the claimant's evidence took more than one day to complete, and there was time overnight to read the statements -directed they would be taken as read. There was no objection to this."

In the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment,  page 85 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"17. It is clear from a reading of those two paragraphs that, so far as the Tribunal were concerned, there was agreement that all the Respondent's witness statements, which included Mr Thompson's witness statement, could be taken to be the evidence-in-chief of those witnesses. There is accordingly no foundation for the first ground of appeal"

The Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Rule 3(1), Page 508 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"3. - (1) The overriding objective of these regulations and the rules in Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is to enable tribunals and chairmen to deal with cases justly."

The Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 Rule 2A(1), Page 509 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"2A (1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Appeal Tribunal to deal with cases justly."

The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1), Page 510 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(3)(d) further states:

"3(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;"

Although The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(3)(d) is aimed at criminal offences, the same right must also apply for civil proceedings.

The Employment Tribunal judgment was primarily based on Malcolm Thompson, a witness who did not attend the Employment Tribunal Hearing, and therefore could not be cross-examined, and whose witness statement was 'taken as read', and was evidence in chief in the Employment Tribunal judgment.

The Appellant has not had a just or fair hearing if the Respondent's witness statements were taken as read, but the Appellant's witness statements were not taken as read.

* 5.7

The Appellant would request a specific finding on whether witness collusion has taken place, and if so, whether this is contrary to Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Schedule 1, Rule 27(4) and Rule 3(1), and constitutes a violation of The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1), and a decision on whether to refer this finding to the Procurator Fiscal's Office.

Page 99 (Note of Argument EAT Rule 3(10) Hearing) of the Court of Session Appendix is entitled "4. Evidence Tainted By Collaboration" and contains statements such as "There was clearly scope therefore for the Respondent's witnesses to have colluded regarding the evidence that they would give."

Page 112 (Note of Appeal EAT Rule 3(7)), paragraph 7.14, of the Court of Session Appendix narrates at length that the Respondent's main witnesses have "conferred" and "collaborated" when preparing their own witness statements.

In the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment,  page 86 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"21. ...Even if that can be deduced from those statements, and I am not sure that it can, the witnesses could have been cross-examined on the matter and challenged on that basis...."

It is not the Appellant's duty at an Employment Tribunal to challenge witnesses on witness collusion. It is clearly the Employment Tribunal's duty. To do so now at the Court of Session clearly offends the interests of justice.

The Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Schedule 1, Rule 27(4), Page 511 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"(4) The tribunal may exclude from the Hearing any person who is to appear as a witness in the proceedings until such time as they give evidence if it considers it in the interests of justice to do so."

The Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Rule 3(1), Page 508 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"3. - (1) The overriding objective of these regulations and the rules in Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is to enable tribunals and chairmen to deal with cases justly."

The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1), Page 510 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

The Appellant has not had a just or fair hearing if the Respondent's witnesses have had sight of each other's witness statements.

* 5.8

The Appellant would request a specific finding on whether witness perjury has taken place, and if so, whether this is contrary to Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Rule 3(1) and contrary to Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 Rule 2A(1), and constitutes a violation of The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1), and a decision on whether to refer this finding to the Procurator Fiscal's Office.

The Appellant has brought up the subject of perjury, which he described as lies, untruths and stories, with the Employment Tribunal before, during and after the main hearing.

November 18 2006 (volume 1 document 7  page 59): "The Claimant is writing to request that the Tribunal draw an adverse inference under section 56(3)(b), as the Respondent's reply is at best evasive, at worst untrue." following the respondent's reply to the Disability Discrimination Act Questionnaire, and on  page 60: "The Claimant may wish to pursue these matters further with the Respondent in a Court of Law."

December 12 2006 (volume 1 document 9  page 88): "This is the Respondent's story, now the Claimant will provide a factual account of what happened."

February 16 2007 (volume 1 document 12  page 157): "The Claimant is writing to request that the Tribunal draw an adverse inference at the earliest opportunity, as new evidence has been produced by the Respondent that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the Respondent lied in the Disability Discrimination Act Questionnaire Response...".

Claimant's witness statement (claimant's bundle of documents, document 119) at pages 37. 43 and 45: "as the Claimant has no wish to bore the Tribunal picking out every single untruth contained in this lengthy version of events." This was stated three times with regard to the ET3 Response Form, the DDA Questionnaire and the Respondent's Further Particulars of Defence.

Claimant's Closing Statement (three copies of which were given to the Tribunal) page 4: "The reason why the Respondent had to tailor a fictitious story around historical facts is simply that the Respondent would not have had any defence against the claims made by the Claimant".

In the Employment Tribunal correspondence, page 133 of the Court of Session Appendix, paragraph 3(b), and in the Employment Tribunal judgment, page 50 of the Court of Session Appendix, paragraphs  92 to  98 very briefly summarise some examples that the Appellant had brought up the subject of many of the lies, untruths and stories during the main hearing.

This subject was also enhanced upon during both appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where the Appellants pro bono Solicitor pointed out, in the very short appeal hearing, evidence that conflicted directly with witness statements, and this is reflected in the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment, page 84 of the Court of Session Appendix,  paragraph 14.

The Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Rule 3(1), Page 508 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"3. - (1) The overriding objective of these regulations and the rules in Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is to enable tribunals and chairmen to deal with cases justly."

The Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 Rule 2A(1), Page 509 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"2A (1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Appeal Tribunal to deal with cases justly."

The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1), Page 510 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

The Appellant has not had a just or fair hearing if the Respondent's witnesses have committed perjury that has the intent to pervert the course of justice.

* 5.9

The Appellant would request a specific finding on whether documents have been fabricated, and if so, whether this is contrary to Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Rule 3(1) and contrary to Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 Rule 2A(1), and constitutes a violation of The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1), and a decision on whether to refer this finding to the Procurator Fiscal's Office.

In the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment,  page 84 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"Reference was also made to an email of 2 April 2006 not apparently referred to in evidence and not, so far as I can see, founded on by the claimant in his submissions which Mr McLaughlin submitted show that the Claimant was not on the RIF list until 2 April 2006."

The above statement "not, so far as I can see, founded on by the claimant in his submissions" is untrue. Why is the Appeal Judge guessing, rather than checking that the Appellant had stated in submissions:

One example of the fictitious nature of this story is highlighted by the following two documents:

Bundle of Documents, Volume II, Document 53, Page  338 &  339

The Claimant is on the Reduction In Force (RIF) list on 21st February 2006.

Bundle of Documents, Volume III, Document 72, Page  408

Request to add the Claimant to the Reduction In Force (RIF) list on 2nd April 2006.

When was the Claimant added to the Reduction In Force (RIF) list, 21st February 2006 or 2nd April 2006?

The Appellant has brought up the subject of fabricated documents with the Employment Tribunal before, during and after the main hearing. This subject was also enhanced upon during both appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where the Appellants Pro-Bono Solicitor pointed out, in the short appeal hearing, evidence that conflicted directly with other evidence.

The Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Rule 3(1), Page 508 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"3. - (1) The overriding objective of these regulations and the rules in Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is to enable tribunals and chairmen to deal with cases justly."

The Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 Rule 2A(1), Page 509 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"2A (1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Appeal Tribunal to deal with cases justly."

The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1), Page 510 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

The Employment Tribunal have findings in fact that have been taken from fabricated evidence, and in such circumstances it constitutes an error in law.

The Appellant has not had a just or fair hearing if the Respondent has used fabricated evidence that has perverted the course of justice.

* 5.10

The Appellant would request a specific finding on whether documents have been altered, and if so, whether this is contrary to Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Rule 3(1) and contrary to Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 Rule 2A(1), and constitutes a violation of The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1), and a decision on whether to refer this finding to the Procurator Fiscal's Office.

The Appellant has brought up the subject of altered documents with the Employment Tribunal before, during and after the main hearing. In the Employment Tribunal judgment,  page 50 of the Court of Session Appendix, paragraphs 87 to 91.

The Employment Tribunal judgment concluded at  page 57 of the Court of Session Appendix, stating:

"126. We concluded from the above that the claimant's allegation was unfounded and that the respondent had not deliberately altered, amended or removed documentation from the bundle of productions in order to improve their case at this Tribunal."

The words "not deliberately altered" should concern everyone, as it means that it is acceptable to alter evidence, just don't do it deliberately.

This subject was also enhanced upon during both appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where the Appellants Pro-Bono Solicitor pointed out, in the short appeal hearing, evidence that conflicted directly with other evidence. In the Employment Appeal Tribunal judgment, page 84 of the Court of Session Appendix,  paragraph 14.

A number of the Respondent's documents have clearly been altered during this claim, submitting altered documents which were used by the Employment Tribunal to pervert the course of justice, by dismissing the unfair dismissal claim and dismissing the disability discrimination claim.

The Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Rule 3(1), Page 508 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"3. - (1) The overriding objective of these regulations and the rules in Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is to enable tribunals and chairmen to deal with cases justly."

The Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 Rule 2A(1), Page 509 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"2A (1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Appeal Tribunal to deal with cases justly."

The Employment Tribunal has wilfully misconstrued the altered document evidence before it, and as such, it is so clearly wrong that it constitutes an error of law.

The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1), Page 510 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

The Appellant has not had a just or fair hearing if the Respondent has altered evidence that has perverted the course of justice.

* 5.11

The Appellant would request a specific finding on whether the ruling of the Tribunal that:

"We noted that Rule 25(4) refers to a written application being made to dismiss the claim. We considered that as withdrawal of the claim had been done orally at the Hearing, we could consider the respondent's oral application for dismissal"

is totally without foundation in law, and contrary to rule 25(4) Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure), and if so, whether this constitutes a violation of The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1).

In the Employment Tribunal judgment,  page 58 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"133. We noted that rule 25(4) refers to a written application being made to dismiss the claim. We considered that as withdrawal of the claim had been done orally at the Hearing, we could consider the respondent's oral application for dismissal."

In the Employment Tribunal judgment,  page 59 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"136. We decided, in all the circumstances and notwithstanding our reservations (above), to grant the respondent's application to have part of the claim dismissed - that is, the part of the claim relating to injury to health. We, in reaching this decision took into account our conclusions below regarding the merits of the claim of disability discrimination."

The Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Rule 25(4), Page 511 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"(4) Where a claim has been withdrawn, a respondent may make an application to have the proceedings against him dismissed. Such an application must be made by the respondent in writing to the Employment Tribunal Office within 28 days of the notice of the withdrawal being sent to the respondent. If the respondent's application is granted and the proceedings are dismissed those proceedings cannot be continued by the claimant (unless the decision to dismiss is successfully reviewed or appealed)."

The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1), Page 510 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

"Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

The Appellant has not had a just or fair hearing if the Employment Tribunal is not following its own Constitution and Rules, but making it up as they go along.

Chapter 3

I now started to read from the Merits document:

In 1966, Mr Kenneth McAlpine (the Appellant) was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 at age 18 months, which is insulin dependent diabetes controlled by daily injections of insulin. This is the most serious form of Diabetes, and is covered by The Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Despite his disability, the Appellant has gained an honours degree in Engineering and a Masters degree in Computing.

On 12 August 1998, the Appellant started work for Oracle Corporation UK Limited, as a Consultant, and in July 2004 started work in the role of On Demand Service Delivery Manager.

On the 25 May 2006, the Appellant received a phone call from his manager who informed him that he had to attend a meeting in the Edinburgh office on 30 May 2006. No reason was given for the meeting.

At the meeting on 30 May 2006, the Appellant was informed by a Director that he had been selected for redundancy.

The Appellant was made redundant on 10 July 2006.

During disclosure of documents, Oracle Corporation UK Ltd disclosed the following email to the Appellant and the Tribunal, which is on  page 88 of the Court of Session Appendix, and which states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

This  email went on to state that the Appellant should be "exited" (made redundant) from the organisation due to the statement above.

Oracle Corporation UK Ltd,  admitted that Mr McAlpine had taken just two days sickness absence over the previous two years. The average UK employee takes eleven days sickness absence each year.

The Appellant presented a complaint to the Employment Tribunals Service on 25 August 2006 claiming that his dismissal from the employment of Oracle Corporation UK Limited had been unfair and that he had been discriminated against contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act, and which is on pages 1 to 10 of the Court of Session Appendix.

At the Full hearing on merits hearing on 2, 3 and 4 July and 6 August 2006, both the claim for unfair dismissal and the claim for disability discrimination were dismissed, as stated by page 32 of the Court of Session Appendix.

Over the next two and a half years, the Appellant has presented three appeals to the Employment Appeals Tribunal all have been unsuccessful, this appeal being dismissed on pages 76 to 87 of the Court of Session Appendix.

Currently, there is one appeal in the European Court of Human Rights, and one appeal in the Court of Session. The Appellant also tried to lodge a second appeal at the Court of Session because an award of costs of £3,700 against the Appellant. The Court of Session refused this second appeal, as the first appeal, this appeal, is still active within the Court of Session.

Apart from having one of the best claims of direct discrimination ever to be heard by a Tribunal in the UK as everything is in writing, some other extremely disturbing aspects to this case are as follows:

Witness perjury.

Witness collusion.

Documents altered.

Documents fabricated.

Some 170 pages of documents lost by Tribunal. Refusal to obtain these from the Respondent for future appeals.

The Appellant's file at the Employment Tribunal being destroyed, despite the fact that all judgments are under appeal.

Oracle Corporation UK Ltd have a history of acting in a less than truthful manner as was evident in Counsels final summary of Carlucci v Oracle, Case No 2700870/03 at a Tribunal in Reading. Mr Laddie, of Counsel, outlined a deliberate policy of exclusion at the highest level and cited the high handed and arrogant conduct of Oracle throughout the hearings including repeated non-disclosure of documents and emails vital to the case. The witnesses lied all the way through the proceedings he said (Page 135 Court of Session Appendix).

The judgment of the Glasgow Employment Tribunal contained many references to the Appellants documents that were wrong and which could severely hinder future appeals, despite the Appellant writing to the Glasgow Employment Tribunal and requesting that these references be changed, this was refused.

During the appeals process at the Edinburgh Appeals Tribunal it quickly became apparent that all was not right. I wanted to look through the bundle of documents the Employment Tribunal had referred to at the Hearing and that is when I learned that the Glasgow Employment Tribunal had lost volume II of the evidence, some 170 pages of evidence and refused to obtain another copy of these documents from the respondent. I have just recently learned of the Appellant's file there being destroyed.

Lady Smith cancelled one hearing at the Edinburgh Appeals Tribunal at the very last minute when three solicitors and myself and family had travelled through to Edinburgh. No reason was given for this.

I went to the Glasgow Employment Tribunal in good faith, because I had been discriminated against and all I wanted was justice to be done. This case has caused untold grief and hardship, for three years and counting, to not only myself, but to my family.

* 5.1

In the Respondent's ET3,  page 11 of the Court of Session Appendix, submitted by a multinational legal firm to the Employment Tribunal and required by the Employment Appeal Tribunal as evidence, it states in section 2.3:

2.3 If the claim, or part of it, is about a dismissal, do you agree that the claimant was dismissed? Yes

If 'Yes', please now go straight to section 2.6

2.4 If the claim includes something other than dismissal, does it relate to an action you took on grounds of the claimant's conduct or capability? No

If 'Yes', please now go straight to section 2.6

2.5 Has the substance of this claim been raised by the claimant in writing under a grievance procedure? No

Why did the Respondent state 'Yes' in section 2.3 and not go straight to section 2.6?

Why did the Employment Tribunal accept the Appellant's ET3 Form with information in Sections 2.4 and 2.5, which were not required to be there?

Why did the Employment Tribunal accept the Respondent's Section 2.6 which  concludes "....it is the Respondent's belief that the Claimant's claim is inadmissible and/or that he is otherwise in breach of the statutory disputes resolution procedures" when the two preceding paragraphs were referring to redundancy dismissal?

Why did it take six and a half months from the acceptance of the Appellant's ET1 Form on 25 August 2006 to the reasonable adjustments part of the claim being struck out as per the 13 March 2007 Pre-Hearing judgment?

The Respondent in a letter to the Employment Tribunal dated 23 February 2007 "Mr McAlpine appears keen to raise issues which require a full consideration of all of the issues by the Tribunal. We consider that this supports our application (letter of 12 February 2007) for the currently listed Pre-Hearing Review to be vacated and for all matters now to be considered at a full hearing, listed for 3 days, to be convened as soon as possible."

Yet a letter from the Employment Tribunal dated 1 March 2007 confirmed "The Case Management Discussion will take place and will be followed by a Pre-Hearing Review. The purpose of the Pre-Hearing Review will be to consider the Respondent's motion to strike out part of the claim."

The discriminatory emails of April 2006, which were first disclosed to the Appellant on 9 February 2007, connected the reasonable adjustments request in December 2005 with the redundancy selection on 30 May 2006 and was an ongoing act of discrimination according to the Disability Discrimination Act that had to be disconnected by the Respondent with the striking out of the reasonable adjustments because a Section 32 grievance had not been submitted when it was not required to be submitted after a dismissal had taken place.

* 5.2

The Appellant made this claim against 'Oracle Corporation UK Ltd', the Respondent.

The Appellant has Type 1 'diabetes'.

The Respondent, 'Oracle Corporation UK Ltd', was openly discussing the Appellant's disability 'diabetes', and stated in various evidence during the Tribunal the word 'diabetes', one example being  Page 88 of the Court of Session Appendix, which states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

The other example is the "which might lead him to go offsick again" email by Cathy Temple on  Page 89 of the Court of Session Appendix who, as an HR Senior Manager, knew of the Appellant's diabetes.

The Employment Tribunal Judgment did not consider Phil Snowden nor Cathy Temple to have any Personal Liability for the discriminatory emails as, at  paragraphs 56 and 60 of Findings in Fact, it concluded that it "had been a mistake on his part" and "had been an error on her part".

The Employment Tribunal Judgment, in its entire 38 pages, did not consider the Respondent, 'Oracle Corporation UK Ltd' to have any Vicarious Liability for the disability discrimination of its employee, the Appellant.

No one was responsible for this discrimination despite the abundance of evidence before the Tribunal that this was an ongoing act, which led to the Appellant's selection for redundancy. Yet the Tribunal did find at  paragraph 51, purely on the evidence of a statement by a witness not present at the Tribunal, that Malcolm Thompson was unaware of the Appellant's diabetes.

The Appellant would request that this Court find that the Respondent, 'Oracle Corporation UK Ltd', was aware of the Appellant's disability, and is liable for the actions of its employees according to The Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

This claim was against "Oracle Corporation UK Limited", not Malcolm Thompson, so the finding of the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal regarding whether or not Malcolm Thompson had knowledge of the Appellant's disability is irrelevant, as "Oracle Corporation UK Limited" had knowledge of the Appellant's disability.

The Appellant, to this day, has never met or spoken with Malcolm Thompson, so how can the Appellant, or any Claimant or Appellant, be expected to impart knowledge of disability to employees of a Respondent, when the Claimant or Appellant has never met or spoken with employees. The only onus on a Claimant or Appellant, is to impart knowledge of the disability to the Respondent, after imparting this knowledge, the responsibility wholly shifts to the Respondent to disseminate this information to relevant employees.

* 5.3

 Page 88 of the Court of Session Appendix clearly states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Simone/Cathy - given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation"

 Page 89 of the Court of Session Appendix clearly states:

"As Kenneth is on the RIF list, I want to make sure we are not making matters more complicated by trying to bring him back into a customer facing role, which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing."

The Appellant only had 2 days sick leave in 2 years prior to these emails. The average UK employee has 11 days sick leave each year.

There are two less favourable treatments at work here:

1. The disability is diabetes, the less favourable treatment is the assumption that this will lead to a prolonged period of time off due to illness. This is an assumption that would not be made for a non-disabled person, whose relevant circumstances and abilities are the same as the disabled person.

2. The disability is diabetes, the less favourable treatment is the selection for redundancy and subsequent redundancy. The combination of the disability, and the stereotypical assumption, used in combination to exit the disabled person from the organisation would not be made for a non-disabled person, whose relevant circumstances and abilities are the same as the disabled person.

The Appellant was directly discriminated against on 12 and 13 April 2006.

There are currently 200 million diabetics worldwide, whose rights and freedoms will not be secured if the judgment that diabetes will result in prolonged periods of time off in the future is allowed to stand.

* 5.4

The Appellant was allegedly on a Reduction In Force (RIF) list.

 Page 198 of the Court of Session Appendix, stated:

"7998 McAlpine"

If the Appellant was allegedly on a Reduction In Force (RIF) list:

Why was the Appellant's employee number and surname hand written on the Reduction In Force (RIF) list, when all other details of all other employees are typed?

Why was the Appellant's employee number typed in the 'Name provided by' column on that RIF list at the place where Malcolm Thompson's name should have been, shouldn't it have been Malcolm Thompson's name there as the person who allegedly placed the Appellant on the RIF list?

A Reduction In Force (RIF) list comprises of employees who wish to take early retirement, or employees who wish to leave the organisation with a redundancy payment, as well as employees whose jobs are at risk of redundancy.

It is a wish list, which is fluid, as employees are added to the list, and employees are removed from the list. An example of how fluid a Reduction In Force (RIF) list is outlined in  Page 120 of the Court of Session Appendix, where the Respondent states:

"Fine. We will remove him from the list. (In any case before we action the RIF, I will revalidate those which each of you to make sure, there has not been any changes)."

 Page 187 of the Court of Session Appendix, stated:

"Oracle Corporation UK Ltd (the "Company") regrets to inform you that you have been provisionally selected for redundancy."

The Appellant was officially notified on 30 May 2006 that the Appellant had "been provisionally selected for redundancy.".

If the Appellant was allegedly on a Reduction In Force (RIF) list up to 30 May 2006, and the Appellant had "been provisionally selected for redundancy." on 30 May 2006, then all the discriminatory acts (December 2005 and April 2006) happened before the Appellant had "been provisionally selected for redundancy.", and as such, the Appellant's selection for redundancy was sealed by the emails on 12 and 13 April 2006 (Pages  88 and  89 of the Court of Session Appendix), some seven weeks before the Appellant was first notified that he had been provisionally selected for redundancy.

* 5.5

This appeal point concerns whether the Appellant was an "On Demand Service Delivery Manager (oSDM)", or something else.

It was the Respondent's position that the Appellant did not work as an oSDM.

Despite the overwhelming evidence presented to the Employment Tribunal that the Appellant was an oSDM, the Employment Tribunal found that the Appellant did not work as an oSDM.

It has always been the Appellant's position that he worked as an oSDM, and that the Respondent had to manufacture the scenario that the Appellant worked as something else, in order to explain why the Appellant had been the only oSDM made redundant from a team of fourteen oSDMs, when the Appellant was the seventh longest serving oSDM in the team. The Respondent would also have had to explain why the Respondent had recruited a further six oSDMs shortly after selecting the Appellant for redundancy.

There were approximately 50 documents lodged in evidence with the Employment Tribunal, stating that the Appellant was an oSDM.

At  Page 3 of the Court of Session Appendix, the ET1 states:

"4.2 Please say what job you do or did. Service Delivery Manager"

At  Page 12 of the Court of Session Appendix, the ET3 states:

"3.3 Is the claimant's description of their job or job title correct? Yes"

 Page 214 of the Court of Session Appendix states "Kenneth McAlpine, Service Delivery Manager" in the organisation chart of the Respondent organisation on the 25 April 2005.

 Page 123 of the Court of Session Appendix states "It has been necessary to bring in an additional oSDM, Kenneth McAlpine...", when the Appellant was introduced to the Oracle and EA project team.

Page 201 of the Court of Session Appendix states

 Page 124 of the Court of Session Appendix states "Kenneth McAlpine" as an attendee for the On Demand Lifecycle Training which all On Demand Service Delivery Managers (oSDM) would have to attend as well as the managers.

 Page 125 of the Court of Session Appendix states that all oSDMs must perform the On Demand Duty Manager rota twice a month, which means being oncall during the day to provide cover to any customers who cannot contact their assigned oSDM. The Appellant performed the On Demand Duty Manager rota twice a month for approximately two years.

 Page 213 of the Court of Session Appendix states "Kenneth McAlpine, Service Delivery Manager" in the organisation chart of the Respondent organisation on 30 May 2006.

 Page 208 of the Court of Session Appendix states that there would be problems with account cover if Richard Marsden and the Appellant both went on the ITIL training course at the same time. Why would there be a problem if Richard Marsden was an oSDM and the Appellant was not an oSDM?

 Page 127 of the Court of Session Appendix states that the Appellant had obtained the "Foundation Certificate in IT Service Management" which was the level which all oSDMs had to obtain to work as an oSDM.

 Pages 209 to 212 of the Court of Session Appendix states that the Appellant attended 80% of the Environment Agency Outsourcing Review monthly meetings, while Richard Marsden only attended 50%. The Respondent has also stated that not only did the Appellant not perform the oSDM role, but was also not customer facing?

It is not the role of an Employment Tribunal to substitute its own findings on whether or not an Appellant performs a job or job title, when that finding totally contradicts the agreement between both Appellant and Respondent that the Appellant performed the job or job title.

The Respondent could have answered "No" to the question "3.3 Is the claimant's description of their job or job title correct?", and could then have explained what the Appellant's job or job title was in section 3.4 which states "3.4 If 'No', please give the details you believe to be correct below.", but the Respondent did not.

* 5.6

With reference to Paragraph 8(d) in  Page 32 of the Court of Session Appendix, why did the Tribunal let the Appellant read out his witness statement and be cross examined, and then direct that all the Respondent's witness statements be taken as read?

The ordinary dictionary meaning of 'taken as read' is:

take it as read

to accept that something is true without making sure that it is

Or is it the simple understanding given at the Tribunal late afternoon on the second day that, as there were time constraints, the witness statements could be read over night thereby saving the time of the witnesses to read out their witness statements?

The Tribunal direction on this was extremely unclear about the witness statements of the witnesses not present and the Tribunal Judgment on this is a misdirection which led to the Employment Appeal Judgment finding that "....there was agreement that all the Respondent's witness statements, which included Mr Thompson's witness statement, could be taken as the evidence-in-chief of those witnesses."

The Employment Appeal Tribunal took the view that it had taken the interpretation of 'take it as read' as meaning 'to accept that something is true without making sure that it is'. This is a further example of the difficulties faced by the Appellant due to an unjust decision by the Employment Tribunal in Glasgow.

In the interests of a fair and non-bias hearing, it is only fair and non-bias to direct that all witness statements are taken as read either before the hearing or at the start of the hearing, or that no witness statements are taken as read either before the hearing or at the start of the hearing, to ensure that both parties are on an equal footing from the start.

* 5.7

Collusion Meaning and Definition

(n.) An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights, by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.

The following witness statements clearly offend the above rights. The collusion of witnesses, witnesses reading other witnesses statements when producing their own statement, allowing each witness who has colluded to get their story correct with the other witnesses has clearly offended those rights to a fair and just hearing.

Nicholas Cooper

"As his Manager and the person most closely involved, Phil Snowden's statement deals with all these matters."

\- Nicholas Cooper Witness Statement, page 345 of the Court of Session Appendix,  paragraph 6

"The details of these discussions and e-mails are dealt with in Phil Snowden's and Cathy Temple's evidence."

\- Nicholas Cooper Witness Statement, page 352 of the Court of Session Appendix,  paragraph 23

Catherine Temple

"Simone Harch's statement then deals with her involvement with Mr McAlpine until April 2006."

\- Catherine Temple Witness Statement, page 367 of the Court of Session Appendix,  paragraph 7

"Both Phil Snowden and Nick Cooper refer to this initiative in their statements."

\- Catherine Temple Witness Statement, page 368 of the Court of Session Appendix,  paragraph 12

Malcolm Thompson

"I am aware of, and have read the statements of both Phil Snowden and Cathy Temple."

\- Malcolm Thompson Witness Statement, page 385 of the Court of Session Appendix,  paragraph 7

If it is 'in the interests of justice' to exclude any witnesses from a hearing 'until such time as they give evidence', then it must be an abomination of the law to allow witnesses to read other witness statements whilst writing their own witness statements. We know by the law firm document reference code that Phil Snowden and Nick Cooper were first to compile their witness statements and that Malcolm Thompson's witness statement was completed one day after the witness statements of the Appellant had been received at the law firm. There clearly was time for last minute alterations.

This collusion has only one purpose, to invent a 'story' which all witnesses are 'straight on', in order to pervert the course of justice, otherwise, what is the point of the collusion?

The Respondent did not exchange witness statements 14 days before the Employment Tribunal, but instead sent them to the Appellant a day later.

* 5.8

A number of the Respondent's witnesses have committed perjury during this claim, submitting witness statements signed under oath, and confirming the contents of their witness statements in the witness box under oath, which were used by the Employment Tribunal to pervert the course of justice, by dismissing the unfair dismissal claim and dismissing the disability discrimination claim.

A selection of the perjury contained in a number of the Respondent's witness statements that can be proved by hard factual evidence is as follows:

There were two oSDMs working on the EA account before the Appellant.

"Due to the size and complexity of the EA account, there were already two other, standard role, SDMs working on the account, in addition to the On demand Project Manager, and an Executive Sponsor. This enabled a division of tasks which matched the requirements of Mr McAlpine described below. The two standard role SDMs on the account were Julie McFarlane (lead SDM) and Richard Marsden."

\- Witness Statement of Philip Snowden,  Paragraph 8.

This is untrue.  Page 123 of the Court of Session Appendix is an email that shows that only Julie McFarlane and Kenneth McAlpine are covering the Environment Agency (EA) account in July 2004.  Page 201 of the Court of Session Appendix is an email that again shows that only Julie McFarlane and Kenneth McAlpine are covering the Environment Agency (EA) account in July 2004.

 Page 202 of the Court of Session Appendix is an email that shows that Richard Marsden will be joining the Environment Agency (EA) account, and that Julie McFarlane and Kenneth McAlpine are already working on this account.

There were also other lies and untruths, a brief selection is listed below:

Future sickness absence had no impact at all on selection for redundancy.

The 'Service Desk' or 'CIM' role resulted in redundancy.

The Appellant had a 'non-customer facing', 'unique', 'support', 'limited' oSDM role.

The Appellant and the NCCC and CEMLI project.

The Environment Agency (EA) work was 'tailing off' or 'diminishing' and there were no work conflicts between EA and General Electric (GE) work.

The Appellant's position in the October 2005 talent grid.

The Claimant did not perform the 'full SDM' role or the 'standard SDM' role.

The oSDM Monthly Meeting was not a call.

The Claimant was likely to be required to perform the full SDM role.

The Claimant had not asked for any particular action to be taken.

Was there ever a United Kingdom collective redundancy in 2006?

Disability, future sickness absence record, selection for redundancy all as stated at the tribunal.

Most of this perjury can be proved by hard factual evidence that was presented to the Employment Tribunal during the main hearing, but some evidence that was not presented to the Employment Tribunal would allow this Court to determine the perjury quicker. Also, what would aid this Court, and reduce facts and figures, is for the Respondent to admit certain factual evidence, which would result in very little factual evidence having to be used in this appeal?

* 5.9

Fabricated evidence has been used in this case. When you have evidence, which is lodged and stated in the main Employment Tribunal bundle of documents appendix as being one document,  page 233 of the Court of Session Appendix states:

53, 7 February 2006, Template Oracle RIF sheet Support and OD, 329-339

The document "53.",  pages 142 to 147 of the Court of Session Appendix, is made up of four emails, three of which are totally unrelated to each other, but which have the fabricated purpose of showing that Malcolm Thompson received the Reduction In Force (RIF) list in February 2006. This is a fabricated document that has the sole purpose of creating evidence that does not exist, whose sole purpose is to back up the story in the Respondent's witness statements.

If fabricated evidence had not been used in this case, then the Respondent would not have won, because the Respondent would not have had any hard factual evidence to support the Respondent's story that Malcolm Thompson, who did not attend the Employment Tribunal and therefore could not be cross-examined, received the Reduction In Force (RIF) list in February 2006.

Pages 138 and 139 of the Court of Session Appendix shows at paragraph 1 the pathetic excuse to the Appellant questioning the validity of this document.

How can, for example, an email sent in March 2006,  page 145 of the Court of Session Appendix, be received in February 2006,  page 142 of the Court of Session Appendix, can it travel back in time?

There were other questionable documents, which the Appellant believes are fabricated documents, used at the Employment Tribunal.

The Appellant is willing to send such important fabricated documents to an independent forensic document examiner for expert report if the Appellant is still considered "to not be a credible witness".

* 5.10

The Respondent sent the Appellant one A4 folder of documents on 21 December 2006 entitled "Preliminary list of documents".

The Respondent sent the Appellant one A4 folder of documents on 9 February 2007 entitled "Documents sent to Counsel 8 February 2007".

The alterations to documents outlined below are mainly when you compare the contents of the A4 folders listed above, to the actual documents that were contained in the bundle of documents used at the Employment Tribunal.

 Page 150 and page 151 of the Court of Session Appendix, when compared have the following differences "refreshed on Tuesday May 30, 2006." and "refreshed on Monday April 25, 2005.".

 Page 158 and page 159 of the Court of Session Appendix, when compared have the following differences "Nick MT" and "EA – mtg minute taker !".

 Page 170 and page 171 of the Court of Session Appendix, when compared have the following differences "NOTES FROM 1/3/06 |TO| WITH FRAN WINTERS (GE)", "After June go-live", "- Production & bugs issues" and "Get through go-live then review position".

 Page 185 and  page 186 of the Court of Session Appendix, when compared have the following differences "She advised that <name whitened out> has resigned so I have taken <name whitened out> off the list and she is going to confirm back re Kenneth and whether there are any others. She did ask who she should discuss the South Africa redundancies with and I suggested she have a chat with you about them (apologies if that's not right).".

 Page 189 and page 190 of the Court of Session Appendix, when compared have the following differences "I will send by post copy of your Compromise Agreement and Leaver's checklist tomorrow morning.".

 Page 192 and page 193 of the Court of Session Appendix, when compared have the following differences "I will send by post your Compromise Agreement (CA) and Leavers checklist (LC)" and "Amounts are available on your CA and LC".

 Page 196 and page 197 of the Court of Session Appendix, when compared have the following differences "The paperwork refers to the Compromise Agreement (which was sent to you by post with the Leavers checklist).".

Why were the words "Leavers checklist" whitened out from some of these documents?

Of course, this would severely undermine the Respondent's case that the Appellant was fairly dismissed, as sending the "Leavers checklist" just one day after provisionally selecting the Appellant for redundancy, with some 29 days left of the consultation period for the Appellant to find another role within the Respondent, simply beggars belief.

 Page 191 of the Court of Session appendix shows the Respondent's "REDUNDANCY PROCESS GUIDE FOR HR", which states at the very end of the process:

If employee confirmed redundant HRR to issue:

Confirm redundancy letter

Leavers checklist

Compromise Agreement

 Page 198 and page 199 of the Court of Session Appendix, when compared have the following differences "7998 McAlpineKenneth" and "7998 McAlpine Kenneth".

Why are there two versions of all of these documents, when there should clearly only be one version?

The Appellant believes that documents were altered with the intent to detract from the Appellant's case at the Employment Tribunal.

* 5.11

This "Judgment" is totally without foundation in law.

The Employment Tribunal noted that The Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2004 Rule 25(4) refers to a written application being made to dismiss the claim, but decided to utterly ignore their own constitution and rules of procedure, and accept an oral application.

The reason why the Appellant would request that this decision is nullified or overturned, is that the Appellant decided to withdraw this head of loss, personal injury, as the Appellant would like to pursue this head of loss as a separate personal injury claim, which could result in no win no fee representation. If this head of loss was part of the Employment Tribunal claim, the Appellant could not pursue this as a separate head of loss, as the Employment Tribunal explained.

Your Lordships,

I went to the Glasgow Employment Tribunal in good faith, because I had been discriminated against and all I wanted was justice to be done. I have been stigmatised by them "to not be a credible witness" whilst the respondent's witness, who told lies, were found "to be credible witnesses". I declare again, this has caused untold grief and hardship, for three years and counting, to not only myself, but to my family.

What the Court of Session is left with here is that there are 200 million people with Diabetes worldwide, who the Scottish inferior Courts have "judged" are going to be sick in the future, and are therefore unemployable.

Appellant reads a handwritten note on a summary of the grounds of appeal on which his appeal points are based:

* Points of law (eg: perverting the course of justice as in 5.7, 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10)

* Findings in fact which are contradictory to the evidence without any evidence to support them.

* The Tribunal has wilfully misconstrued the evidence.

* The manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with the facts before it will be so clearly wrong that it constitutes an error of law.

Appellant asks for an extended judgement to be posted on to the Court of Session website.

Appellant asks why he had to pay £350 for this hearing.

Lord Osborne, "The Court will take time to consider and will make judgement known in due course."

Court rises at 3.10 p.m.

Chapter 4

On 1 February 2010 I sent the following email to the UK Supreme Court in London:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a party litigant in person, and have had to represent myself through all Tribunals and Courts myself.

My case concerns unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, and will affect the rights and freedoms of some 200 million diabetics worldwide.

In the past four years since being made redundant in July 2006, I have been through the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and more recently the Court of Session. Part of my case is in the European Court of Human Rights.

My enquiry is this:

1: Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear this case if it fails at the Court of Session?

2: If the Court of Session dismiss all or parts of my case do I have to ask the Court of Session for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court?

3: If the Court of Session refuse my application for permission to appeal, what form(s) do I have to complete in order to lodge an appeal in the Supreme Court?

4: If the Court of Session grant my application for permission to appeal, what form(s) do I have to complete in order to lodge an appeal in the Supreme Court?

5: Can I complete and lodge at the Supreme Court these form(s) myself, or does this have to be completed by a legal firm or Barrister?

6: Do I have a right to represent myself at the Supreme Court, as I did at the Court of Session?

7: If I cannot represent myself at the Supreme Court, and I cannot get legal aid, will the Supreme Court appoint an Advocate or Barrister to represent me, or would I have to pay for an Advocate or Barrister myself?

Yours faithfully

Mr K McAlpine

Later that day I sent an email to my father who had taken notes during the Court of Session hearing recently:

Dad,

Can you try and get your notes from the January hearing typed up and emailed to me by the weekend.

I want to start analysing their defence as put forward by their Advocate, so that I have identified appeal points that I will appeal to the Superior Court.

Since the Advocate talked for just over an hour, you shouldn't have too many notes to type up, the rest was just me reading my law and merits document without any interventions from the judges.

Kenneth

The next day I received an email from the UK Supreme Court:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Your email was forwarded to the Registrar who has asked me to refer you to the Practice Directions on our website http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/procedures/practice-directions.html

You should contact us again once the Court of Session has made its order. We cannot easily advise you without the order.

Yours sincerely

Robert Greenberg

Registry

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

The following day I sent myself an email on the research I had conducted on the UK Supreme Court website:

* A guide to bringing a case to The Supreme Court

Appeals from the Court of Appeal in England & Wales and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

1.5 An appeal to The Supreme Court from any order or judgment of the Court of Appeal in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland may only be brought with the permission of the Court of Appeal or of The Supreme Court.

1.6 An application for permission to appeal must be made first to the Court of Appeal. If that Court refuses permission, an application may be made to The Supreme Court. An application is made by filing an application for permission to appeal.

* Appeals from the Court of Session in Scotland

1.7 An appeal lies to the Court from any order or judgment of a court in Scotland if an appeal lay from that court to the House of Lords at or immediately before 1 October 2009.

1.8 As a general rule, permission to appeal is not required from an interlocutor of the Inner House of the Court of Session on the whole merits of the cause. The appeal must be filed within three months of the date of the interlocutor appealed from; and the notice of appeal must be signed by two Scottish counsel who must also certify that the appeal is reasonable.

1.9 As a general rule, permission to appeal is not required from an interlocutory judgment of the Court of Session where there is a difference of opinion among the judges or where the interlocutory judgment is one sustaining a dilatory defence and dismissing the action. The appeal must be filed within three months of the date of the interlocutor appealed from; and the notice of appeal must be signed by two Scottish counsel who must also certify that the appeal is reasonable.

1.10 Permission to appeal is required for an appeal to The Supreme Court against any interlocutory judgment of the Court of Session that does not fall within para. 1.9, and only the Inner House of the Court of Session may grant permission to appeal. A refusal by the Court of Session to grant permission to appeal is final and no appeal may then be made to The Supreme Court.

1.11 Permission to appeal from the Court of Session is also required for an appeal to The Supreme Court under the provisions of certain Acts of Parliament, and permission may be granted either by the Court of Session or, if refused by the Court of Session, by The Supreme Court. When permission to appeal is granted where para.1.10 or this paragraph applies, it is not necessary for two Scottish counsel to certify that the appeal is reasonable.

So, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland you do not need two Barristers to certify it is a good appeal.

In Scotland, you do need two Advocates to certify it is a good appeal, costing each Scottish applicant thousands more.

Kenneth

Later that morning I sent the following email to the UK Supreme Court Registry:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have had a look at your "A guide to bringing a case to The Supreme Court".

In Sections 1.5 to 1.11 I noticed that anyone bringing an appeal to The Supreme Court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland do not have to seek certification from two Barristers that the appeal is good.

In Scotland, I noticed that anyone bringing an appeal to The Supreme Court do have to seek certification from two Advocates that the appeal is good.

Can you explain why people in Scotland have to seek certification from two Advocates, whilst people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland do not have to seek certification from two Barristers?

Yours faithfully,

Mr K McAlpine

Within twenty minutes I received the following reply from the UK Supreme Court:

Dear Mr McAlpine

In England, Wales & Northern Ireland parties have to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. In Scotland parties are not required to seek permission to appeal, therefore the need to seek certification from two barristers.

Yours sincerely

Robert Greenberg

Registry

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

A week had gone by before I received the following email from the Court of Session:

Dear Sir/Madam,

NAME OF CASE: APPLICATION BY KENNETH McALPINE &c FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

I have to advise you that Lady Dorrian's opinion in the above will be issued on: 12 February 2010.

A copy of the Opinion will be emailed to you by this department at approx 9am on the date of issue (above may need to be altered for a party litigant). In the case of no email address given, please contact Mrs. Cranston, on 0131 240 6772, to obtain a copy of the relevant opinion.

I should also advise you that the opinion will be published (not necessarily in its full form) on the opinions page of the Scottish Courts webpage on the Internet at www.scotcourts.gov.uk at approx 12 noon on the date of issue.

Yours faithfully,

Later that day I sent the following email reply to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email and attached letter today.

I was concerned by the statement "I should also advise you that the opinion will be published (not necessarily in its full form)":

1: Is this opinion going to be published on the Court of Session website in its full form?

2: If not, why not?

3: Can you also ensure that the following statement, which was raised numerous times during the hearing

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Simone/Cathy - given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation"

Is quoted fully in all issued opinions (including the opinion published on the Court of Session website), as there are an estimated 230 million diabetics worldwide who may wish to take out class action lawsuits regarding this 'statement', and you cannot deny them that right.

Mr K McAlpine (Appellant)

Later that evening I received another email reply from the Court of Session:

It going to be published in full form this is only in the cases of children

The next day I sent the following email to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

I have been informed that the opinion in this case will be issued to me by email on Friday 12 February 2010.

I noticed that my case is listed for Friday 12 February 2010, in the Court Rolls as follows:

Advising

(No Appearance of Counsel Required)

XA165/08 Application by Kenneth McAlpine for Leave to Appeal a Decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

Do I have to attend?

What will happen at this 'Advising' hearing?

Mr K McAlpine (Appellant)

Within an hour I had received the following email reply from the Court of Session:

Mr McApline,

You do not need to attend this, The Opinion will be issued to youself in the morning.

There is no hearing as such tomorrow, just that an Opinion in your case will be issued.

Gavin McLeod

Early on 12 February 2010 I received the following document from the Court of Session:

EXTRA DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION

Lord Osborne

Lord Clarke

Lady Dorrian

[2010] CSIH 11

XA165/08

OPINION OF THE COURT

delivered by LADY DORRIAN

in Application

by

KENNETH McALPINE

Appellant;

for

LEAVE TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Act: Party

Alt: Fairley; McGrigors LLP

12 February 2010

Introduction

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The appellant had lodged a notice of appeal in respect of a decision of the Employment Tribunal registered 13 September 2007. In terms of rule 3(7) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, that notice was considered in chambers by a judge who took the view that the notice disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the appeal. The appellant exercised his right under Rule 3(10) to have a hearing before a judge who decided that no further action should be taken on the notice of appeal. Subsequently, on 18 August 2008, the judge, in chambers, refused leave to appeal to this court. The appellant sought a hearing on that issue, after which the judge, on 28 August 2008, confirmed that no further action would be taken on the notice of appeal. In these proceedings the appellant seeks leave to appeal under section 37 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 under which an appeal lies, with leave of the appeal tribunal or appeal court, from "any decision of order of the Appeal Tribunal".

Background

[2] The appellant's employment with the respondent came to an end in June 2006 when he was dismissed for redundancy. He claimed that the dismissal was unfair and also that he had been discriminated against contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. He claimed that he was selected for redundancy because he was a diabetic or for reasons relating to his diabetes. Contrary to the position advanced by the appellant, the Tribunal were satisfied that the reason for dismissal was redundancy and that the respondents had acted reasonably in dismissing him for that reason. The facts which were found by the Tribunal are conveniently summarised in the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal as follows.

"Although the claimant was employed as an on-demand service manager, OSDM, there were many elements of that role which he did not carry out. In December 2005, the claimant had indicated to his senior manager, Mr. Snowden, that he was not happy with his work. The element of his job which involved him being responsible for incident management for the Environment Agency account was thereafter deleted from his responsibilities.

At a meeting when the above was discussed, Mr. Snowden learned for the first time that the claimant was a diabetic. At a meeting that took place a few days later between the claimant and his line manager, Mr. Cooper, there was discussion about what the claimant would do when the Environment Agency account matured, as it was put. The respondents would have been looking for him to take on a full OSDM role but he did not want to do that. He indicated that he would look for other roles in the organisation. The claimant was also told that he need not carry out work for another client in the first few days of each month when he was preparing the Environment Agency report, the claimant having indicated that he felt his workload excessive.

In January 2006 it was announced that there was to be a merger between the respondents and CBL. That was going to result in reorganisation. A new service desk was to be set up to cover all on-demand service delivery. There were also to be customer incident managers for all large accounts. The above changes effectively removed the need for the claimant's role. The only part of his role that would remain would be the preparation of a monthly report and there was no need to have an employee who was employed only to carry out that task. A need for redundancies was recognised. Ultimately, 121 employees were made redundant across the UK.

In February 2006, a reduction in force list, referred to as an "RIF list" in the Tribunal's judgement, was compiled by Mr. Malcolm Thompson who is Mr. Cooper's line manager. The claimant's name was put on to it in February 2006 on the findings of the Tribunal. He did not at that time know that the claimant was a diabetic. He knew that the claimant had concerns about being stressed and had discussed it with his manager.

Some time early in 2006 the claimant had been in touch with HR as had Mr. Snowden regarding seeking alternative employment for him. There was an exchange of e-mails involving Mr. Snowden, Ms. Temple of HR and Mr. Thompson in April 2006 in which Mr. Thompson raised the possibility of two options for the claimant by way of alternative employment. Mr. Snowden also referred to the possibility of him going off sick if he were allocated to either option. The claimant had not, though, had previous sickness absence of any significance. Ms. Temple and Mr. Snowden both gave evidence which was accepted by the Tribunal that the references to sickness absence were an error. Mr. Snowden was not, at the time of the e-mail exchange about the options for alternative work aware that the claimant was on the RIF list."

[3] Before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, four points were advanced for the appellant. These were:

1. There was no evidence before the Tribunal of the basis on which the appellant had been put on the RIF list.

2. The e-mails were such that the Tribunal could only have concluded that dismissal was because of diabetes and that the decision to make him redundant had been made prior to any attempt at consultation on the matter.

3. The respondent's efforts at consultation were not genuine.

4. The evidence of Mr. Cooper, Mr. Snowden and Ms. Temple should have been discounted by the Tribunal because their written statements gave rise to the conclusion that there must have been collusion involved in their preparation.

[4] As previously noted, the Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that there was no arguable case and that no further action should be taken on the notice of appeal. The appellant now seeks leave to take the matter further.

The application for leave

[5] At the outset of the hearing on the application, counsel for the respondent raised two preliminary issues. First, whether there was an appealable "decision or order" for the purposes of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, section 37; and secondly, whether it was competent to raise on appeal issues which had not been canvassed before the EAT.

[6] Beyond that, the position of the respondent was that leave should not be granted in respect of any of the grounds of appeal since none met the test explained in Campbell v Dunoon & Cowal Housing Association Ltd 1992 SLT 1136 @ 1137 where the court noted that in order to obtain leave to appeal an appellant had to "show something of the nature of probabilis causa in relation to a genuine point of law which is of some practical consequence".

[7] The appellant addressed us on the grounds of appeal under reference to submissions contained in two written documents prepared by him and headed respectively "merits" and "law". We shall deal with each ground of appeal in the order dealt with in those documents.

[8] Ground 5.1 The nub of this ground of appeal is that the Employment Tribunal should not have accepted the respondent's ET3 form (the response to the appellant's claim) since it was incorrectly completed. Having answered question 23 in a way which should have led them to proceed directly to question 26, they nevertheless continued to answer questions 24 and 25. It seems to us that it was a matter for the discretion of the tribunal whether, and how, the response fell to be considered and no error in law has been identified.

[9] Grounds 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 These grounds are linked together, although as set out in the grounds of appeal they are not very clearly stated. However, from the elaborations contained in the two submission documents it was clear that the root of the appellant's complaint under these grounds was an assertion that the Employment Tribunal were not entitled, on the evidence before them, to reach certain conclusions. In particular they were not entitled to conclude:

(a) That at the time Mr. Thomson put the appellant's name on the RIF list he was unaware of the appellant's diabetes;

(b) That the role occupied by the appellant had been made redundant;

(c) That there was insufficient evidence to link the treatment of the appellant with his diabetes; and

(d) That the reason for the redundancy was that reorganisation of their business led to a diminution in the need for employees to carry out the limited OSDM role which the appellant had performed.

10] It was suggested in respect of (a) that there was no evidence before them which would have entitled them to reach this conclusion ("law" document) or that they reached this conclusion purely on the statement of a witness who was not present at the tribunal ("merits" document). This is not correct, as is made quite plain in [ paragraphs 167-169 of the decision where the evidence of other witnesses is referred to. As to the remaining conclusions, the argument for the appellant was largely to the effect that the Tribunal should not have interpreted certain e-mails and the evidence which the Tribunal heard about them in the way that they did. However the interpretation of the evidence before them was a matter for the tribunal. The conclusions which they reached were conclusions which were reasonably open to them on the evidence before them and no error in law has been identified. As with several other grounds of appeal these grounds were an attempt to categorise a determination of the tribunal that they preferred one piece of evidence over another, or one interpretation over another one, as an error in law when it is plainly no such thing.

11] Ground 5.5 The Tribunal found that although the appellant's job title was OSDM, he in fact performed only a small part of that job ([paragraph 19). Ground 5.5 asserts that this finding was contrary to the evidence. It is clear from  paragraph  18 this was not the case and indeed that the claimant himself accepted that there were many elements of the OSDM role that he did not carry out. The assessment of the evidence was a matter for the tribunal and no error in law has been identified.

12] Ground 5.6 This was a complaint that the Employment Tribunal acted inequitably in allowing certain statements to be "taken as read". [ Paragraph 8(d) of the Tribunal's decision records:

"The respondent had, by agreement, produced witness statements. The Chairman directed the statements would not be taken as read, but upon reconsideration, - given that the claimant's evidence took more than one day to complete, and there was time overnight to read the statements – directed they would be taken as read. There was no objection to this."

The course of action was thus acquiesced in the by the appellant. We understand that it is not uncommon for such a practice to be followed in the Employment Tribunal. Furthermore, rule 14 in schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution etc) Regulations 2004 provides as follows:

"(2) So far as it appears appropriate to do so, the Employment Judge or tribunal shall seek to avoid formality in his or its proceedings and shall not be bound by any enactment or rule of law relating to the admissibility of evidence in proceedings before the courts."

To proceed as it did was clearly within the competency of the tribunal and we can identify no prejudice to the appellant in the tribunal having done so. Again no error in law has been identified.

[13] It may be that there has been some misunderstanding here. The appellant appears to be under the impression that in allowing these statements to be "taken as read" the Tribunal were using that phrase as meaning "to accept that something is true without making sure that it is". That, of course, is not the meaning in which the phrase was used by the Tribunal, which used it simply to mean that the written statements could be taken as the evidence in chief of the witnesses to whom they related.

[14] Grounds 5.7 to 5.9 These grounds are linked, being grounds based on assertions that:

There was collusion between certain witnesses;

There was perjury from certain witnesses; and

That certain documents had been fabricated

[15] It seems to be suggested that the Tribunal should have identified this collusion, fabrication or perjury and as a result rejected the evidence of the witnesses involved. In the first place, no points of this kind were raised before the Tribunal and nor was there evidence tending to support any such assertions. If a party suspects collusion, perjury or fabrication it is for that party to cross examine the witnesses in such a way as to lay that suspicion before the court or tribunal. It will be very seldom that such matters will be so flagrant as to give rise to a suspicion in the minds of the tribunal ex proprio motu and there was nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal which should reasonably have done so. The Tribunal concluded that the witnesses in question were credible and reliable and on the evidence before them those were conclusions which they could reasonably hold. No error in law has been identified.

16] Ground 5.10 This ground is also linked with the preceding grounds, being an assertion that certain documents were altered. It differs from the previous grounds in that the matter was raised before the Tribunal, which records the submissions made in [ paragraph  8(g) of the decision. Having recorded the nature of the submissions being made by both parties, the decision records, at the end of paragraph 8, the following  direction:

"The Chairman directed, having heard the submission of the parties above, that if the claimant's position was that the respondent had deliberately altered and/or omitted documents to improve their position in this case, that should be put to the relevant witness/es for comment. Thereafter, the Tribunal – at the request of the respondent – would make a specific finding of fact regarding that matter".

It proceeded to do so at paragraphs  125 and  126. Having set out the factors which they accepted, they recorded at  126 that:

"We concluded from the above that the claimant's allegation was unfounded and that the respondent had not deliberately altered, amended or removed documentation from the bundle of productions in order to improve their case at this Tribunal."

This is a conclusion which the evidence will bear and no error of law has been identified.

[17] Ground 5.11 This relates to a decision by the Tribunal to allow the respondent orally to make a motion for dismissal of the appellant's claim for injury to health, the appellant having moved orally at the hearing to withdraw that part of the claim. The procedure in question is covered by regulation 25 which, at the relevant time, provided as follows:

"(1) A claimant may withdraw all or part of his claim at any time – this may be done either orally at a hearing or in writing in accordance with paragraph (2).....

(4) Where a claim has been withdrawn, a respondent may make an application to have the proceedings against him dismissed. Such an application must be made by the respondent in writing to the Employment Tribunal Office within 28 days of the notice of the withdrawal being sent to the respondent. If the respondent's application is granted and the proceedings are dismissed those proceedings cannot be continued by the claimant (unless the decision to dismiss is successfully reviewed or appealed)."

The Tribunal, having noted the terms of the rule requiring a written application, stated in paragraph  133:

"We considered that as withdrawal of the claim had been done orally at the hearing we could consider the respondent's oral application for dismissal".

18] Having regard to the wording of paragraph 25(4) it may be that an error of law, procedural in nature, has been identified in this ground of appeal. However, we note that the Tribunal correctly stated at paragraph [ 134 that any argument regarding injury to health is not a free-standing claim but is dependent on part of the disability discrimination claim being successful. Had the Tribunal left the matter for the respondent to submit a written application within 28 days of the withdrawal of the claim, it merely means that the issue would have been considered at a later stage. Standing that the hearing concluded on 6 August and the decision, signed on 6 September and registered on 13 September, was that the disability discrimination claim had to fail, it is inconceivable that a different decision would have been reached by the Tribunal in respect of the parasitical claim. Accordingly, whilst a technical error in law might have been identified it is not one which is of practical consequence.

[19] Leave to appeal will therefore be refused on all grounds.

[20] Since we have determined the matter on the basis that there are no stateable grounds of appeal identified it is not necessary for us to determine the preliminary arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents.

After reading this document I immediately sent the following email to the Financial Ombudsman Service:

Dear Sir/Madam,

You asked me to keep you updated on Your Ref: 7621674/JML/W302

Please find below three documents regarding this case:

"Law 2.doc" was the legal document submitted and read out at the Court of Session hearing.

"Merits 2.doc" was the merits document submitted and read out at the Court of Session hearing.

"dor2801.doc" is the judgment of the Court of Session.

Obviously, I will be taking this forward to the Supreme Court.

Yours faithfully,

Mr K McAlpine

I immediately received the following automated email reply from the Financial Ombudsman Service:

Thank you for your e-mail , I am out of the office on Friday. This e-mail is unattended in the meantime. I will deal with your message as soon as possible on my return. If you have an urgent request please contact darren.gatcum@financial-ombudsman.org.uk

That morning I also sent the following email to the UK Supreme Court Registry in London:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a short judgment from the Court of Session.

As the Appellant in this case, I now wish to appeal this judgment, and have a number of short questions:

1: Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear this appeal?

2: Does Section 1.11 of "A guide to bringing a case to The Supreme Court" apply to this appeal?

3: Do I have to request permission to appeal from the Court of Session?

4: Do I have to request permission to appeal from the Supreme Court, if so what form do I use, or do I just lodge an appeal?

5: What Practice Direction(s) should I follow to lodge an appeal?

6: Can I represent myself at the Supreme Court, or do I require a Barrister?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

I also sent yet another email to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

There are presently 245 million diabetics worldwide, so the written statement:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

is going to make 245 million diabetes worldwide very angry indeed. as well as not protecting their rights and freedoms. No-one can predict the future with any certainty whatsoever.

I was made redundant due to this statement, and I had only taken 2 days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes 11 days sick leave each year.

I now need representation from the equality and human rights commission to take this forward to the Supreme Court, otherwise the equality and human rights commission is going to make enemies of 245 million people, including their friends and families, which could bring this figure to well over one billion people.

Will the equality and human rights commision protect the rights and freedoms of diabetics by providing representation for this case at the Supreme Court?

Mr McAlpine

I received the following automated email from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Thank you for contacting the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Your enquiry has been received by our Helpline Team and we will respond to your e-mail within 3 working days.

Yours sincerely

The England Helpline Team

I then sent an email to various Barrister Chambers:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I require representation from a Barrister to take my case to the Supreme Court.

This case involves the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences (can anyone predict the future with any certainty whatsoever?). I have an email from my employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

This email, as well as another, was used to 'exit' me (make me redundant) from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd who admitted in writing that I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eleven days sick leave each year. I did not have high blood pressure.

Please find below three short documents regarding this case:

"Merits 2.doc" was the merits document submitted and read out at the Court of Session hearing.

"Law 2.doc" was the legal document submitted and read out at the Court of Session hearing.

"dor2801.doc" is the judgment of the Court of Session, issued today, 12 February 2010.

In order to protect the rights and freedoms of some 245 million diabetics worldwide, I will be taking this forward to the Supreme Court.

If you can provide represention I would be grateful for a reply asap.

Thanks,

Later that afternoon I received the following email reply from the UK Supreme Court Registry:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Your email was referred to the Registrar who has asked me to advise you that. because of the provisions of Section 40 of the Court of Session Act 1988, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction.

Yours sincerely

Robert Greenberg

On behalf of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

I then sent the following email to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Can you advise what Court of Session Rule I have to follow, and any Form to be filled out, in order to request permission to appeal to the Supreme Court?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Shortly after sending this email I received the following email reply from the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine,

I suggest that you get in contact with the Supreme Court In England to asertain what needs to be done as it is different rules that Govern the Supreme Court. You might be able to find some information on their website.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/index.html

Gavin McLeod

During the afternoon I received the following email reply from one of the Barrister Chambers:

Dear Mr Mcalpine,

I am very sorry, but we will not be able to advise you directly as we are not registered to provide direct access and could therefore only accept instructions on your case from a solicitor. There are however a number of chambers that do have barristers registered for direct access in the area of employment law including

Cloisters - 7827 4000 - www.cloisters.com

4-5 Gray's Inn Square - 7404 5252 \- www.4-5.co.uk

Outer Temple Chambers - 7353 6381 \- www.outertemple.com

Alternatively you could try FRU and the Bar Pro Bono Unit, details below:

http://www.freerepresentationunit.org.uk/ - 7611 9555

http://www.barprobono.org.uk/ - 7611 9500

I do hope that this is of some assistance to you. Once again, I am sorry that we are not able to assist you directly but I do wish you luck with your case.

Kind regards

That evening I received the following email from my father:

Kenneth,

My take on section 40 and having a quick glance at the Supreme Court rules is that you need to apply at the Court of Session for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, just as you did re. the EAT refusal.

That's just a quickly formed opinion.

Dad.

I sent the following email reply back to my father:

Dad,

Doubtful.

There seems to be no appeal to the Supreme Court and they have clearly stated that in the email 'no jurisdiction'.

The relevant sections are:

Appeals from the Court of Session in Scotland

1.7 An appeal lies to the Court from any order or judgment of a court in Scotland if an appeal lay from that court to the House of Lords at or immediately before 1 October 2009.

So, my appeal does not lie from the Court of Session to the House of Lords on 1 October 2009 or before.

The Court of Session Act 1988, Rule 40 states:

40

Appealable interlocutors .(1)

Subject to the provisions of any other Act restricting or excluding an appeal to the House of Lords and of sections 27(5) and 32(5) of this Act, it shall be competent to appeal from the Inner House to the House of Lords— .

(a) without the leave of the Inner House, against a judgment on the whole merits of the cause, or against an interlocutory judgment where there is a difference of opinion among the judges or where the interlocutory judgment is one sustaining a dilatory defence and dismissing the action; .

(b) with the leave of the Inner House, against any interlocutory judgment other than one falling within paragraph (a) above. .

(2) An interlocutor of the Court granting or refusing a new trial, on an application under section 29 of this Act, shall be appealable without the leave of the Court to the House of Lords; and on such an appeal the House of Lords shall have the same powers as the Court had on the application and in particular the powers specified in sections 29(3) and 30(3) of this Act. .

(3) It shall be incompetent to appeal to the House of Lords against an interlocutor of a Lord Ordinary unless the interlocutor has been reviewed by the Inner House. .

(4) On an appeal under this section all the prior interlocutors in the cause shall be submitted to the review of the House of Lords.

In essence the whole of Rule 40 only states that appeals are from the Court of Session TO ONLY The House of Lords.

Kenneth

I then quickly sent another email to my father:

Dad,

As a followup to my last email, it clearly states in the Supreme Court that if they state that they have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal, the email/letter is proof that all domestic remedies have been exhausted.

Where one of these restrictions applies, the Registrar will inform the applicant in writing that The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. The European Court of Human Rights accepts this letter as setting out the jurisdiction of The Supreme Court in the litigation, for the purpose of determining whether the applicant has satisfied the requirement, laid down by Article 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that all domestic remedies must be exhausted before an appeal can be made to the Strasbourg Court.

So, I now have the proof.

Kenneth

Three days later I composed and sent the following email and attached letter to The Lord President of the Court of Session, the highest judge in Scotland:

Dear Sir,

Please find attached a letter for The Lord President of the Court of Session.

I trust that you can get this letter to The Lord President or forward it to the relevant person.

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Attached letter read:

The Lord President

Court of Session

Parliament House

Parliament Square

Edinburgh

EH1 1RQ

Lord President,

I have been the Appellant in Case XA165/08, which concluded with the Judgment issued by the Inner House of the Court of Session on 12 February 2010.

This case concerned the stereotypical assumption that Diabetics will be off sick a lot in the future, and is direct discrimination according to The Disability Discrimination Act, as it is an assumption of the future, not based on facts, made against the stereotypical group of Diabetics. The Judgment chose to ignore this most important appeal point in its entirety.

There are approximately 245 million Diabetics worldwide, and the problem with stereotypical assumptions is that they are wholly inclusive, because it is an assumption against every member of the stereotypical group.

Now the fact that Case XA165/08 and all eleven appeal points were wholly dismissed states that the Court of Session agrees that Diabetics will be off sick a lot in the future. As that is the case, the Court of Session has now treated with contempt the lives of not only 245 million Diabetics, but also of their friends and families.

I now have no choice but to appeal to either the Supreme Court or European Court of Human Rights on behalf of the 245 million Diabetics that this stereotypical assumption affects.

I trust that you can provide an explanation to the 245 million Diabetics worldwide why the Court of Session agrees that Diabetics will be off sick a lot in the future.

I will take no reply to this letter as proof that you cannot provide an explanation.

Mr K R McAlpine

Chapter 5

It was now 16 February 2010 when I decided to email the London lawyer that Diabetes UK had first put me in touch with:

Dear Adela,

Hi, Kenneth McAlpine.

If you remember, you kindly arranged a Pro-Bono Solicitor for me via Diabetes UK. Unfortunately the appeal lodged by the Pro-Bono Solicitor was dismissed, and I now require representation from a Barrister to take my case to the Supreme Court and/or European Court.

This case involved the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences, and I have an email from my employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

This email, as well as another, was used to 'exit' me (make me redundant) from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd who admitted in writing that I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eleven days sick leave each year. I did not have high blood pressure.

In order to protect the rights and freedoms of some 245 million diabetics worldwide, I will be taking this forward to The Supreme Court and/or European Court.

If you could forward this email to any Barristers in London who would provide represention I would be eternally grateful.

Thanks,

I also sent another email out to a few more Barrister Chambers asking for representation.

Later that day I sent the following email to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Did you manage to get that letter to The Lord President?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

The next morning I received the following email reply from the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine,

I passed your letter onto The Lord Presidents Legal Secretary, Mr Michael Anderson.

Gavin McLeod

That afternoon I had received an email from one Barrister Chambers asking for more information and I sent them the following email:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I require representation from a Barrister to take my case to the Supreme Court.

This case involves the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences. I have an email from my employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

This email, as well as another, was used to 'exit' me (make me redundant) from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd who admitted in writing that I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eleven days sick leave each year. I did not have high blood pressure.

In order to protect the rights and freedoms of some 245 million diabetics worldwide, I will be taking this forward to the Supreme Court and/or The European Courts.

If you can provide represention I would be grateful for a reply asap.

Thanks,

That same afternoon I received an email reply from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for contacting the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Helpline, regarding the termination of your employment following just two days sick leave in two years.

Apologies for the delay in responding to your correspondence, this is due to the high demand for the EHRC Helpline's services. We do hope that this has not caused you any inconvenience.

The EHRC Helpline will give you initial advice and information. However, anything we say to you is not a statement of your legal position.

This is because we cannot speak to the other party involved to get a full picture of the incident. If we think you will need further assistance however, we will advise you on other sources of help.

The EHRC Helpline advises on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA).

Part I of the DDA relates to the 'Definition of a Disability', in which the DDA defines a disabled person as a person with 'a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities'.

For further guidance on the definition, please find attached a link to the publication 'Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability'

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/definition_of_disability.pdf

Please note however, that only a Judge at a Employment Tribunal can state for definite whether or not a disability is covered by the DDA.

Part II of the DDA makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a disabled person in relation to the recruitment or retention of staff.

However, the DDA does not prohibit an employer from appointing the best person for the job. Nor does it prevent employers from treating disabled people more favourably than those who are not disabled.

There are five forms of discrimination which are unlawful under Part II, which are:

* Direct Discrimination

* Disability Related Discrimination

* Failure to make a Reasonable Adjustment

* Victimisation

* Harassment

Failure to make a reasonable adjustment is triggered when a disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage by any Provision, Criteria or Practice (PCP), or a physical feature.

Please note however, that there are many elements that an employer has to consider when deciding whether or not an adjustment is reasonable.

However, there are some occasions when the employer is able to show that such adjustments are not reasonable for them to make. Such as the:

* Effectiveness of the adjustment

* Practicability of the adjustment

* Cost of the adjustment and extent of disruption

* Employers activities and the size of the employer

* Extent of financial resources (including Access to Work Assistance)

* Extent in which the individual is willing to co-operate;

* Adjustments already made for others

* Effect on other employees

For further guidance on the duties of employers, please find attached a link to the publication 'Code of Practice Employment and Occupation'.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/drc_employment_code.pdf

Many adjustments cost little or nothing and are often a matter of flexibility and developing a creative approach to working practice, such as: enabling you to work flexible hours, taking food breaks to manage diabetes, or allowing you to take time off to attend doctors' appointments

A common adjustment made by employers is to keep two records of absence, one relating to non disability reasons (coughs, colds etc), and the second for disability related reasons.

The employer could then as a reasonable adjustment ignore some, or all absences relating to a disability. By ignoring these absences, the likelihood of any disciplinary procedures being triggered are greatly reduced.

Under Part II of the DDA, there are strict time limits for taking any case to a Employment Tribunal.

If you wish to take a claim to an Employment Tribunal, you must bring your claim within three months of the act of discrimination.

This means that the last possible date for your application to reach the tribunal in time is three months minus one day from the date of the act you are complaining about

For example, if the incident happened on the 15th December 2009, your application must reach the tribunal by the 14th March 2009.

Please could you provide the following pieces of information to enable what level of assistance is appropriate from the EHRC Helpline;

Date of your dismissal?

Have you appealed against this decision? If so, at what stage of the appeal are you currently at?

Have you submitted an application for an Employment Tribunal?

If an Employment Tribunal hearing has already taken place, what was the result of this hearing?

I hope this information is useful to you, and if you do need any further advice then please do not hesitate in contacting the EHRC Helpline again.

Please quote the following reference number 1-7063021.

Yours Sincerely,

Simon Adams

Helpline Adviser

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Equality and Human Rights Commission Helpline

Freepost RRLL-GHUX-CTRX

Arndale House

Arndale Centre

MANCHESTER

M4 3AQ

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your long winded and unhelpful reply below.

How does that help anyone experiencing discrimination, especially when this information is widely available via the Web.

I notice that you have removed the contents of my email to you, why are you censuring my information?

You are obviously not getting this at all.

The next step in this case is the Supreme Court or The European Court. Are the Equality and Human Rights Commision going to represent me or not?

The 245 million diabetics worldwide have a right not to be discriminated against.

Mr McAlpine.

I received the automated email reply:

Thank you for contacting the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Your enquiry has been received by our Helpline Team and we will respond to your e-mail within 3 working days.

Yours sincerely

After researching help on legal assistance on the internet, I sent the following email to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am now applying to The Equality and Human Rights Commission for legal assistance under Section 28 of the Equality Act 2006.

I require legal assistance to take my case to The Supreme Court, as it has already been through the ET, EAT and Court of Session.

My case concerns my ex employer making a stereotypical assumption concerning my disability) and is direct discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (the equality enactment).

I will require legal assistance as soon as possible, as the last judgment in this case was issued on 12 February 2010, and an appeal to The Supreme Court requires to be lodged within 28 days I believe.

Mr McAlpine

I also sent the following email to one of the Barrister Chambers who had emailed me earlier in the day:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I require representation from a Barrister to take my case to the Supreme Court.

This case involves the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences. I have an email from my employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

This email, as well as another, was used to 'exit' me (make me redundant) from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd who admitted in writing that I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eleven days sick leave each year. I did not have high blood pressure.

I have attached 5 documents for your assistance:

2 emails regarding the disability discrimination.

"Merits 2.doc" was the merits document submitted and read out at the Court of Session hearing.

"Law 2.doc" was the legal document submitted and read out at the Court of Session hearing.

"dor2801.doc" is the judgment of the Court of Session, issued 12 February 2010.

In order to protect the rights and freedoms of some 245 million diabetics worldwide, I will be taking this forward to the Supreme Court and/or The European Courts.

If you can provide represention I would be grateful for a reply asap.

Thanks,

Later that same day I received a short email reply from one of the Barristers:

Do you have a hearing date? Have you got the Court of Appeal judgement? Have you got permission to appeal to the Supreme Court?

Regards

I then sent the following email reply to that Barrister:

Dear Sir,

Do you have a hearing date?

The Court of Session dismissed this appeal in its entirety on 12 Feb 2010. I need to appeal this to The Supreme Court and/or The European Court of Justice or Human Rights.

Have you got the Court of Appeal judgement?

I have attached 5 documents:

2 emails regarding the disability discrimination.

"Merits 2.doc" was the merits document submitted and read out at the Court of Session hearing.

"Law 2.doc" was the legal document submitted and read out at the Court of Session hearing.

"dor2801.doc" is the judgment of the Court of Session, issued 12 February 2010.

Have you got permission to appeal to the Supreme Court?

No, do I require this for an appeal from Court of Session to Supreme Court?

Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear this appeal?

I hope this information answers your questions, if you require any further information please email me.

Kenneth

Towards the end of that day I started to receive email replies from Barrister Chambers similar to the following:

Had two barristers look at your case but we are unable to take it on , sorry cannot help, Chris

I also received the following email reply from the Barrister who had asked for further information earlier:

Having looked at the documents it appears that:

(a) the appeal is really on facts and assessment of the evidence rather than law;

(b) that you already have a "wasted costs" order in respect of an earlier appeal;

(c) that there is no realistic prospect of your obtaining permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

You should also bear in mind that even putting in an appeal to the Supreme Court will cost several thousand pounds in court fees alone - let alone in legal fees.

Regards

Later that evening I received a phonecall from one of the Barrister Chambers, and immediately sent the following email reply:

Thank you for your telephone call this evening.

I require representation from a Barrister to take my case to the Supreme Court.

This case involves the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences. I have an email from my ex employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

This email, as well as another, was used to 'exit' me (make me redundant) from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd who admitted in writing that I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eleven days sick leave each year. I did not have high blood pressure.

This case has been through the ET, EAT and Court of Session.

I have attached 5 documents for your assistance:

2 emails regarding the disability discrimination.

"Merits 2.doc" was the merits document submitted and read out at the Court of Session hearing.

"Law 2.doc" was the legal document submitted and read out at the Court of Session hearing.

"dor2801.doc" is the judgment of the Court of Session, issued 12 February 2010.

I have not asked the Court of Session for permission to appeal, as I am not sure this is required.

In order to protect the rights and freedoms of some 245 million diabetics worldwide, I will be taking this forward to the Supreme Court and/or The European Court of Justice or Human Rights.

I would be looking for a Barrister to appeal at least the following:

1: The stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absence as direct disability discrimination.

2: That this direct disability discrimination some seven weeks before my provisional selection for redundancy led to my redundancy.

3: That I worked for the Respondent as a Service Delivery Manager (50 documents in evidence that support this).

If the Barrister identifies any other appeal points then I will consider these points as well.

If you can provide represention I would be grateful for a reply asap.

If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,

I also sent the following email reply to the Barrister who had asked for more information earlier that day:

(a) the appeal is really on facts and assessment of the evidence rather than law;

I would disagree, certainly on at least half the appeal points, as this case has always been about direct disability discrimination that is covered by the DDA. The finding that one person in the Respondent did not know of my disability is perverse, as it was the Respondent who I took to the Tribunal, and the Respondent was openly discussing and making stereotypical assumptions about my disability, so the Respondent had knowledge. The witness collusion is perverse as well, especially when you have signed witness statements stating in writing that they have read other witness statements. Even the last appeal point is perverse in law, accepting a verbal application when it clearly states it has to be in writing.

The Service Delivery Manager role is evidence based, but it is perverse, as I stated in the ET1 that I worked as a Service Delivery Manager and the Respondent in their ET3 agreed I worked as a Service Delivery Manager. There were also 50 documents in evidence that stated that I worked as a Service Delivery Manager. My job title was "Service Delivery Manager".

However, what bothers me most is that the "Service Delivery Manager" is irrelevant, because whether I worked as a cleaner or the chief executive does not give the respondent a right to directly discriminate about diabetes. My diabetes was irrelevant as to whether or not to make me redundant, but was used, in writing, to make me redundant.

(b) that you already have a "wasted costs" order in respect of an earlier appeal;

True, but this was from the original Tribunal, rather than any subsequent appeal, because I represented myself, and my monetary claim was too big in their opinion.

(c) that there is no realistic prospect of your obtaining permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

True, but do I require permission to appeal?

"putting in an appeal to the Supreme Court will cost several thousand pounds in court fees alone"

I am not working and my wife has earnings below the threshold to pay any fees. I may be eligible for legal aid, or at least some help via legal aid.

Kenneth

The next day I received an email from another Barrister who was showing an interest:

May I please have a copy of the decision against which you wish to appeal ?

Kind regards,

I immediately sent the following email to this Barrister:

"dor2801" is the Court of Session judgment issued on 12 Feb 2010, and emailed to me.

I have also attached the law and merits documents which were read out at the hearing.

Kenneth

As I had not received any emails yesterday that showed any real prospects of obtaining legal representation, I sent out the following email to more Barrister Chambers:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find a brief attached of a case that I am looking for representation from a Barrister.

I also sent this document to the Barrister who was showing some interest earlier.

It was now 19 February 2010 when I received the following email from the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I attach a copy of the correspondence which I have sent to you in today's post.

Yours sincerely

Ms Maureen Hall

Letter attached read:

McGrigors LLP

Princes Exchange

1 Earl Grey Street

Edinburgh EH3 9AQ

Mr K R McAlpine

SENT BY POST AND EMAIL

19 February 2010

Our Ref: MFH/EFS/ORO013.000001

Dear Mr McAlpine

You v Oracle Gorporation UK Ltd

Motion for expenses

I enclose by way of intimation a motion which I will enrol with the court on Thursday 25 February 2010.

Yours sincerely

Maureen Hall

Senior Associate

For McGrigors LLP

Rule 23.2 (2)

FORM 23.2

FORM OF MOTION

PART 1

Name of Appellant: Kenneth McAlpine

Name of Respondents: Oracle Corporation UK Ltd

Name and nature of Petition

Court case number: XA165/08

Date of last interlocutor: 12 February 2010

ls case due in court during the next seven days? No

(lf Yes, state reason)

PART II

Name of firm enrolling Motion.......McGRlGORS LLP.............

Agent for: Respondents Ref No: DJT/MFH/EFS/OR0013.000001

E-mail address: david.turner@mcgrigors.com

Rutland Exchange No....723301 .... Town.......EDlNBURGH.......

Tel No.............0131 777 7453..... Fax No.0131 777 7003............

Date of enrolment of motion: 25.02.10

Has motion been intimated? Yes. lf yes, give date: 22.02.10

The motions are:-

"On behalf of the Respondents, the court having refused the application for leave to appeal, to find the Appellant liable to the Respondents in the expenses occasioned by the application."

PART III

MOTION SLIP

General Department only

Name of case: Kenneth McAlpine - v - EAT

Name of firm ....McGRIGORS LLP

Estimated duration

(a) less than 10 mins

Later that day I sent the following email to the Financial Ombudsman Service:

Dear Madam,

Please refer to email and attachment below to support my case as to why I required representation from my insurance company, and the outcome of not receiving said representation.

Yours faithfully,

Mr K McAlpine

I then attached the letter and motion that I had received from the law firm McGrigors a couple of hours earlier.

The next day I received the following letter by post:

The Lord President's Private Office

Parliament House

Edinburgh EH1 1RQ

19 February 2010

KR McAlpine Esq

Dear Mr McAlpine

I am responding on behalf of the Lord President to your letter regarding the decision by the Inner House of the Court of Session to refuse an application by you for leave to appeal to that Court a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The Lord President is unable to comment in correspondence about the terms of judicial decisions. As you yourself identify, the proper way of challenging such decisions is by way of taking them to another court with jurisdiction to overturn them. This is something in relation to which you may wish to take legal advice.

Yours Sincerely

Michael Anderson

Legal Secretary to the Lord President

On 21 February 2010 I sent the following email to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have had type 1 diabetes for 44 years. In 2006 my employer stated in writing that due to my diabetes, I would be off sick a lot in the future, and to exit me from the Organisation, which they duly did in July 2006. This is a stereotypical assumption that diabetics will bo off sick alot in the future, and is direct discrimination according to The Disability Discrimination Act. Incidently, I had only taken 2 days sickness absence in the previous two years as admitted by my ex-employer.

Over the next 4 years, I have taken this case through the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Session. All my complaints have been dismissed.

Now, there are approximately 245 million diabetics worldwide, and the problem with stereotypical assumptions is that they are wholly inclusive, because it is an assumption against every member of the stereotypical group.

I now have to appeal to the Supreme Court within two months.

I am now applying to The Equality and Human Rights Commission for legal assistance under Section 28 of the Equality Act 2006, as this case wholly affects the rights and freedoms of some 245 million diabetics worldwide to not be discriminated against.

I will require legal assistance as soon as possible, as the last judgment in this case was issued on 12 February 2010, and an appeal to The Supreme Court requires to be lodged within either 28 days or 3 months, whichever applies.

If you cannot provide legal assistance, I trust that you can provide an explanation to the 245 million Diabetics worldwide why The Equality and Human Rights Commission cannot represent the rights and freedoms of some 245 million diabetics worldwide to not be discriminated against.

Mr McAlpine

I also sent the following email to Bayer, a multinational pharmaceutical company, that makes products for diabetics:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been a type 1 diabetic for 44 years thanks to organisations like yourself who provide the drugs and equipment that enable us to lead a relatively normal life.

It is because of the close relationship between your organisation and diabetes that I now ask for your help.

In 2006 my employer terminated my employment by stating that diabetes would result in a lot of future sickness absence.

I had taken just 2 days sickness absence in 2 years as admitted by my employer. It is this stereotypical assumption that diabetes equals a lot of future sickness absence that I have been fighting on the grounds of disability discrimination. This will not only affect the rights and freedoms of all diabetics, but their employment prospects as well. I have been fighting this case for four years on my own against legal teams of lawyers and Barristers.

This case is now about to go to either the Supreme Court or The European Court of Human Rights, and I fear that I cannot represent myself in that Court, and will require the services of a Solicitor and/or Barrister to represent me which I could not afford.

With some 245 million diabetics worldwide, I fear that the legal systems will use this judgment in many countries against diabetics, and that diabetics will be the first people to have their employment terminated.

I would appreciate any legal assistance that you could provide in this matter (your own legal team or law firm that you use, for example).

I have 2 months in which to lodge an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Yours faithfully,

On 21 February 2010 I received the following email from the only Barrister left who was still showing an interest:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

I need to know if you have ANY right of appeal. I need to know quickly and without searching for the answer in your papers, if you have had a full appeal hearing, or merely been refused permission to appeal and if not, on what basis you have any right to appeal to the Supreme Court. If you cannot assist me with this question, I would need to be instructed by a Scottish solicitor please.

I immediately sent the following email reply to this Barrister:

"if you have had a full appeal hearing"

I would say yes, as this appeal was heard on three different days spanning approximately 8 months. The first hearing was no more than 10 minutes (arranging times for more substantive hearing, the next hearing was half a day, Respondent's counsel objected to competency, the last hearing was approximately a day, where Respondent's Counsel spoke for around 1.5 hours, and then I read out Law and Merits documents in full.

"on what basis you have any right to appeal to the Supreme Court"

From Supreme Court A-guide-to-bringing-a-case-to-The-Supreme-Court document (online at Supreme Court):

Appeals from the Court of Session in Scotland

1.7 An appeal lies to the Court from any order or judgment of a court in Scotland if an appeal lay from that court to the House of Lords at or immediately before 1 October 2009.

1.8 As a general rule, permission to appeal is not required from an interlocutor of the Inner House of the Court of Session on the whole merits of the cause. The appeal must be filed within three months of the date of the interlocutor appealed from; and the notice of appeal must be signed by two Scottish counsel who must also certify that the appeal is reasonable.

1.9 As a general rule, permission to appeal is not required from an interlocutory judgment of the Court of Session where there is a difference of opinion among the judges or where the interlocutory judgment is one sustaining a dilatory defence and dismissing the action6. The appeal must be filed within three months of the date of the interlocutor appealed from; and the notice of appeal must be signed by two Scottish counsel who must also certify that the appeal is reasonable.

1.10 Permission to appeal is required for an appeal to The Supreme Court against any interlocutory judgment of the Court of Session that does not fall within para. 1.9, and only the Inner House of the Court of Session may grant permission to appeal. A refusal by the Court of Session to grant permission to appeal is final and no appeal may then be made to The Supreme Court.

1.11 Permission to appeal from the Court of Session is also required for an appeal to The Supreme Court under the provisions of certain Acts of Parliament, and permission may be granted either by the Court of Session or, if refused by the Court of Session, by The Supreme Court. When permission to appeal is granted where para.1.10 or this paragraph applies, it is not necessary for two Scottish counsel to certify that the appeal is reasonable.

1.7 does not apply, 1.8 looks good, 1.9 maybe (one sustaining a dilatory defence and dismissing the action?), 1.10 unknown, 1.11 maybe (DDA = Act of Parliament?).

Regards,

I quickly received another email reply from this Barrister:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

I know nothing about Scottish law or the hierarchy of the courts in your country. But I will accept instructions to advise on the DDA point from a Scottish solicitor, who can explain this to me rather more affirmatively. My very brief perusal of what you sent suggests that there was a refusal of leave to appeal without any final hearing and in England, there would be no right of appeal to the House of Lords from such refusal.

Yours sincerely,

I immediately sent another email reply to this Barrister:

I appreciate you have only perused this briefly, and understand your point about Scottish law. If it is refusal of leave to appeal without a final hearing would I be better just appealing this to The European Court of Human Rights?

Later that evening I received the following email reply from this Barrister:

If (but only if) the Scottish system confers no further UK appeal route, perhaps yes, subject to advice about the merits under ECHR, which I can give.

I then sent another email reply to this Barrister:

I can check my right of appeal with a Solicitor in Scotland and get back to you. It looks like I would have around 2.5 months to appeal if I have a right of appeal to Supreme Court. I will let you know asap.

Can you give a very brief, one or two sentences, opinion on the chances of success of an appeal (either to Supreme Court or ECHR), so that I know whether I am flogging a dead horse or a thoroughbred?

The last email I received from this Barrister that day stated:

No sorry. I would need to consider this in great depth and agree terms with you first. If my job were so simple life would be so much easier and lawyers wouldn't exist.

To which I replied understood.

The next day I received the following email from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your email dated 17th February to the Equality & Human Rights Commission. In your email you have asked whether we will support your case but have not given us sufficient details to make an assessment of your case or its suitability for further action.

I am aware from our records that we have spoken with you in the past about a similar issue and that we have informed you that we would not provide legal assistance for that claim. If you are continuing to pursue the same issue then I must inform you that our decision remains unchanged. If you have a new incident that you would like us to consider then please send details of this issue to us including details of the issue itself, relevant incident dates and a summary of the action that you have taken so far.

If you have any further questions pleases feel free to return to the helpline.

Kind regards,

Richard Watts

Equality & Human Rights Commission

I immediately sent the following email to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Sir,

"If you are continuing to pursue the same issue then I must inform you that our decision remains unchanged."

No disrespect to yourself, but I think this decision has to be made at the very top of the EHRC.

Why, because there are some 245 million diabetics worldwide, including US Supreme Court Judge, leaders of Countries, Royalty, Hollywood Stars, Sports Stars and Politicians in other Countries. The trouble with a stereotypical assumption is that it is wholly inclusive, ie: includes everyone in the group "diabetes".

Unless you want an international 'incident' of a worldwide nature, because the claimant was not supported and represented by the very body set up to stop discrimination, ie: The Equality and Human Right Commission, I suggest that you pass this on, and act quickly to get me representation, otherwise, when this goes public, and this will be sooner rather than later, and the worldwide population learn that I was turned down repeatedly by the body set up to stop discrimination, I can only guess at the reaction.

As I said before, I have represented myself throughout this claim because the Equality and Human Rights Commission has refused to help me, and I ask again for legal assistance under Section 28 of the Equality Act 2006 for an appeal to Supreme Court and/or The European Court of Human Rights.

If you do not provide assistance, I will lodge these emails and responses as evidence at The European Court of Human Rights and the future case at the United Nations.

Regards,

Kenneth

Later that afternoon I received the following email from a Barrister Chambers:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for forwarding the further information regarding your claim which has been reviewed by counsel and unfortunately this matter is not one which we are able to assist you with.

Kind regards,

Chris

That evening I prepared and sent the following email and document to the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal and the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a document opposing your motion for expenses.

Mr K R McAlpine

Attached document read:

McGrigors LLP

Princes Exchange

1 Earl Grey Street

Edinburgh EH3 9AQ

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a Form opposing your motion for expenses.

Mr K R McAlpine

Form 23.4

Form of opposition to motion

PART 1

(To be completed where motion opposed by post or fax only)

Name of petitioner*...Kenneth McAlpine........................................

Name of first respondent*...Oracle Corporation UK Ltd................................

Name of firm notifying opposition ...Litigant In Person...................................

PART II

Agent for ........................................... Ref No. ....................................

Rutland Exchange No. ........................... Town ......................................

Tel. No. ............................................. FAX No. ..................................

Date of notice of opposition ....22 February 2010..........................................

Date opposition intimated ...22 February 2010.............................................

Nature and effective date of enrolment of motion to be opposed .............................

...Opposed Motion 25 February 2010............................................................

* Delete as appropriate
PART II

OPPOSITION SLIP – General Department only

Name of case .............................. v. ..................................................

Name of firm ......................................................................................

e.g. John Smith v. John Brown.

I then sent the following email to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a form of opposition to a motion that I have also sent by post to the General Department concerning Case XA165/08.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I attached and sent with this email the motion that I had sent to the law firm McGrigors and the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Edinburgh a few minutes earlier.

The next morning I received the following email from the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Unfortunately this email address is for firms within the Electronic motion scheme, as your case in an appeal all motions should be enrolled at the counter or sent into the InnerHouse and Extracts department.

Thanks

Louise Cranston

I then sent an email with attached opposition to motion to the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Please find attached an opposition to a motion regarding case reference XA165/08.

Mr McAlpine

Within minutes I received the following email reply from the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine,

No motion has been enrolled in the above case therefore there is nothing to oppose in your appeal.

Your opposition should also include your reasons for opposing the motion, along with payment, or if you are fee exempt a fee exemption form.

Accordingly I return your opposition slip.

I immediately sent the following email to the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Gavin,

The motion is being enrolled by the Respondent tomorrow, please see attached email (You v Oracle).

The respondent did not give any reasons for the motion, just that it was a motion for expenses, therefore I am giving no reasons for opposition apart for opposing the motion, until the respondent supplies their reasons for the motion.

I am fee exempt.

Mr McAlpine

I received another email from the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Mr McApline,

If the motion is not being enrolled till Wednesday by the respondent, you should lodge you opposition slip (along with your reason for opposition) along with your fee exemption form after the motion has been enrolled in the Court.

Accordingly I have not lodged your opposition as there is no motion lodged before the court as yet.

Gavin McLeod

I immediately sent the following email for clarification to the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

The respondents motion for expenses is being enrolled on Thursday 25 February 2010.

On what date, and by what time, should I lodge my opposition?

Do I have to also lodge my opposition to the motion by post, or is just an email to you acceptable?

Mr K McAlpine

I received the following email reply from the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine,

If the resondents are enrolling their motion on Thursday 25 Februeary, you have untill 12:30pm on Monday 1 March to lodge your opposition.

It would be better if you sent your opposition by post as you should be sending a Fee exemption slip along with the opposition, if however you can get this done electronically you can email these both to myself.

Gavin McLeod

I then had to email the Inner House of the Court of Session again:

Dear Sir,

I have been exempt from fees before, so if it is not on your computer system, who do I have to phone/email for a fee exemption slip?

Mr McAlpine

The final email I received that day was from the Inner House of the Court of Session::

Mr McAlpine,

Every time you incurr a fee you should be lodging a fee exemption slip stating that you are still fee exepmt.

You can get the form from our website.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/civil/docs/fee_exemption_abrev.pdf

Gavin McLeod

I then downloaded, completed and sent the following form from the Court of Session:

Case Reference Number: XA165/08

EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF COURT FEE

To: Clerk of Court

An application for exemption from payment of court fee has previously been lodged in these proceedings. There has been no change in circumstances as detailed in that application and accordingly further exemption is claimed in respect of opposition to motion for costs lodged by Respondent.

Date: 23/02/10

On 24 February 2010 I received the following email from Bayer:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your recent enquiry which has been passed to the Diabetes Support Group.

We regret that Bayer's legal advisers are unable to assist individuals with their cases. If you have not already done so, we would suggest seeking advice on your options from your local Citizens' Advice Service.

If you need to respond to this email please use the following address: diabetesuksupport@bayer.co.uk, not the sender as we are unable to respond from the senders address.

Thank you

Regards

Later that day I received an email from a Barrister Chambers:

Dear Mr McAlpine.

I have forwarded your e-mail onto Counsel, and will be in touch as soon as possible

Kind regards,

The next morning I sent the following email to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I spoke to you on the telephone on Tuesday 23 February 2010, and you stated that you would review my case and my application for legal representation.

When can I expect a decision on this review?

Mr K McAlpine

Later that day I sent the following email to the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Case: XA165/08

Please find attached my opposition to motion for expenses made by the respondent today.

Mr K McAlpine

The only difference between this attached motion and the motion I tried to lodge three days ago was:

Nature and effective date of enrolment of motion to be opposed .............................

OPPOSED MOTION, opposing Respondent's motion for expenses enrolled on 25 February 2010 regarding case reference XA165/08.

It was now 26 February 2010 and I sent an email to the Enable section of the United Nations that deal with the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am currently involved in an application to The European Court of Human Rights in a case of disability discrimination, and wish to know what my rights are for appealing to the United Nations.

This case involves the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences. I have an email from my ex-employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

This email, as well as another, was used to 'exit' me (dismiss me) from my ex-employer who admitted in writing that I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eleven days sick leave each year. I also did not have high blood pressure.

There are approximately 245 million people with diabetes worldwide. If diabetes is viewed as resulting in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, then the rights and freedoms to not be discriminated against, of some 245 million people, will not be secured.

My questions are:

1: Can I appeal to the United Nations regarding this discrimination of some 245 million people?

2: When can I appeal, now or only after my case is decided in The European Court of Human Rights?

3: As this case has been through all legal Courts in the UK, where discrimination was dismissed, can I also make a formal complaint to the United Nations regarding the UK legal system?

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Chapter 6

On 26 February 2010, I received the following email from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for contacting the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Helpline again, regarding your request for Section 28 assistance from the EHRC.

Apologies for the delay in responding to your correspondence, this is due to the high demand for the EHRC Helpline's services. We do hope that this has not caused you any inconvenience.

As stated in the previous correspondence from the EHRC Helpline, the EHRC is unable you assistance under Section 28 of the Equality Act.

Please find attached a copy of the email sent to yourself on the 22nd February 2010, for your records.

I hope this information is useful to you, and if you do need any further advice then please do not hesitate in contacting the EHRC Helpline again.

Please quote the following reference number 1-7063021.

Yours Sincerely,

Simon Adams

Helpline Adviser

Equality and Human Rights Commission

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

You stated in your last email: "As stated in the previous correspondence from the EHRC Helpline, the EHRC is unable you assistance under Section 28 of the Equality Act."

1: Are you able to help anyone with any discrimination under Section 28 of the Equality Act?

2: If so, can you please list cases where you have helped.

You stated in your last email: "I hope this information is useful to you, and if you do need any further advice then please do not hesitate in contacting the EHRC Helpline again."

3: What information have you provided that is of any possible use to me, apart from informing me that you will not represent me to stop discrimination in the UK?

4: What advice, if any, can you provide to anyone regarding equality, human rights and discrimination that is of any possible use whatsoever?

Please note that your email replies will be used as evidence in The European Court of Human Rights and United nations appeals to show that this discrimination is State (UK) wide, with no help whatsoever to people experiencing any form of inequality.

Because you are not providing legal assistance under Section 28 of the Equality Act, I will require answers to the following questions:

5: What is the reason why the EHRC are not providing legal assistance under Section 28 of the Equality Act?

6: Do you agree that the statement "the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness" is discriminatory?

7: Why are you not fighting discrimination against 245 million diabetics, including Royalty, Presidents of Countries, US Supreme Court Judge, Hollywood stars, etc?

Mr K McAlpine.

Later that evening I sent an email to a firm of lawyers:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am currently involved in a case of disability discrimination that has now to go to the Supreme Court within the next two months.

This case involves the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences. I have an email from my ex-employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

This email, as well as another, was used to 'exit' me (dismiss me) from my ex-employer who admitted in writing that I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eleven days sick leave each year. I also did not have high blood pressure.

There are approximately 245 million people with diabetes worldwide. If diabetes is viewed as resulting in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, then the rights and freedoms to not be discriminated against, of some 245 million people, will not be secured.

My ex-employer is a worldwide organisation with annual profits of $8 billion.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

On 28 February 2010, I sent an email to the Barrister who had shown an interest in the case. In this email I stated:

I emailed the Supreme Court and they replied that they had no jurisdiction to hear this case.

At the moment, I am currently considering various options, but needless to say that this ends the UK legal system involvement, and my need for a UK Advocate/Barrister.

Kenneth

I received a quick email response from the Barrister:

Do you want help with the European Court of Human Rights?

To which I sent the following email reply:

I know that I have around 5 months to lodge an application, so I will let you know in a couple of months.

Can you give me a ball park figure on how much you would charge for an ECHR application, so that I can compare this figure to others.

If I go this route, it would probably be based on two points:

1: The Disability Discrimination.

2: The right to a fair hearing (me allegedly not doing the oSDM role and witness collusion, and possibly altered and fabricated documents).

Kenneth

Later that morning I received the following email reply from the Barrister:

To try to identify arguable grounds - 1000

To draft papers 1500

All Plus vat

The above is subject to seeing the papers you send.

I sent the following email back to the Barrister:

Ok, thanks, I will get back to you at some point in around two months, and let you know if I require you to identify grounds and draft papers.

Kenneth

The next day I received the following email reply from a law firm:

Dear Kenneth

Thank you for your email.

In order for me to properly advise, please find attached a questionnaire to complete and return. I will then be in contact.

Kind regards

Attached was a two-page questionnaire asking mainly contact details, employer details and dismissal details.

I completed and sent the questionnaire back to the law firm Landau Zeffertt Weir.

Within the attached questionnaire was a section where you had to give a brief history of events.

Brief history of events:

This case involves the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences. I have an email from my ex employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

This email, as well as another, was used to 'exit' me (make me redundant) from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd who admitted in writing that I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eleven days sick leave each year. I did not have high blood pressure.

This case has gone through the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Session.

I require representation for an appeal to either the Supreme Court or European Court.

Later that morning I sent an email to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

1: What is the 'status' of this expenses motion?

2: When can I expect it to be listed in the Court Rolls?

3: Why was it not listed in the Court Rolls for Thursday 25 February 2010 as opposed?

4: If I want to opposed this motion in writing, how do I do that?

Mr K McAlpine

I quickly received the following email reply from the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine,

Your opposition to the motion for expences is still to be heard, the motion wil have to be heard by a quorum of Judges, a hearing date will be fixed and intimated to both parties in due course, I am sorry I cannot be more specific with dates.

It will be listed on the Court rolls the day before the hearing.

If you wish to oppose a motion in writing then you would just fill out the form 23.4 and sent it in to ourself.

I believe that you have spoken to Mr Cullen, an Inner House Clerk this morning and he explained all this to you over the phone.

Many thanks

I had further questions regarding the motion for expenses lodged at the Court of Session, so I sent the following email to the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Please see attached motion to this email that the Respondent lodged with the Court of Session, I have a number of questions:

1: Why did the Respondent complete Section III when it clearly states "General Department only"?

2: Has this motion been accepted by the Court of Session when it has clearly not been completed correctly?

3: Has this motion been through the 'General Department' or did it 'skip by' the General Department?

Mr K McAlpine

Later that day I received the following email reply from the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Mr McApline,

Section III is for the use of the General Department, but parties should still fill out this part of the motion form.

The motion has been accepted by the Court of Session.

The Motion was lodged with the Inner House and extracts Departement, which is part of the General Department.

I trust this answers your questions.

Gavin McLeod

I was still extremely unhappy about the whole case at the Court of Session, so I emailed the Inner House of the Court of Session again:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your last email, and the explanation that you provided, which I must disagree with, and this may form part of an appeal later against the Respondent.

Can you confirm whether Rule 40 or Rule 41 of the Court of Session was followed through out this appeal?

Mr K McAlpine

The last email I sent that day was to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights part of the United Nations:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am currently involved in an application to The European Court of Human Rights in a case of disability discrimination, and wish to know whether the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities can help me as I am unrepresented and have been fighting a multinational organisation represented by a multinational legal firm as well as the Scottish legal system and Judiciary in this disgraceful discrimination.

This case involves the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences. I have an email from my ex-employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

This email, as well as another email, was used to 'exit' me (dismiss me) from my ex-employer who admitted in writing that I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eleven days sick leave each year. I also did not have high blood pressure.

There are approximately 245 million people with diabetes worldwide. If diabetes is viewed as resulting in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, then the rights and freedoms to not be discriminated against, of some 245 million people, will not be secured.

I trust that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities can either represent me, or obtain representation for me, regarding fighting this discrimination in the European Court of Human Rights.

Thank you.

The next morning I received an email from the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine,

Your application was for leave to appeal against a Decision of the EAT in which a form 40.2 was submitted. There are several Rules of court that you had to adhere to.

Many thanks

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

As I stated earlier:

Can you confirm whether Rule 40 or Rule 41 of the Court of Session was followed throughout this appeal?

As you have not answered the question, and this will form another appeal point in a future appeal, I think appellants have a right to know, especially appellants appealing Tribunal decisions.

Mr K McAlpine

I immedaitely received the following email reply from the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Mr McApline,

Your application was submitted under Rule of Court 40.2, therefore your application proceeded under chapter 40 of the Court of Session rules.

I hope this answers your question.

Gavin McLeod

Upon reading this email I sent the following email to the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for confirming that Rule 40 of Court of Session rules was followed in this appeal. I now have some more questions:

1: Rule 40 of the Court of Session rules is only for appeals from the Lyon Court and Sheriff Court, can you confirm that is correct?

2: Rule 41 of the Court of Session rules is for appeals from Statutory Tribunals, of which the EAT is a Statutory Tribunal, can you confirm that is correct?

3: Why was Rule 41 not followed throughout this appeal process?

Mr K McAlpine

Later that morning I received the following email from the Inner House of the Court of Session::

Mr McApline,

You required leave to appeal to the Court of Session. You can either apply to the EAT or the Court of Session for leave. Since you came to the Court of Session for leave, the correct procedure was Rule of Court 40.2.

Although your appeal was on under Statute (Rule 41) contained within Rule 41.2 This makes reference for you to fill out your application in Form 40.2.

Gavin McLeod

I was becoming more and more puzzled, so sent a further email to the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

I have further questions:

1: Rule 41 of Court of Session, particularly Rule 41.2 applies to leave to appeal from either Tribunals or the Court of Session, is that correct?

2: Rule 40.2 of Court of Session only applies to leave to appeal from either the Lyon Court or Sheriff Court, is that correct?

3: Even although Rule 41 requests that form 40.2 is completed for leave to appeal from the Court of Session, Rule 41 should still have been followed, is that correct?

Please answer the specific questions, as they are neither long nor hard, and will speed up answers to this matter.

Mr K McAlpine

I quickly received the following email reply from the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Mr McApline.

1, No, Rule 41.2 applies to Leave to Appeals under Statute only and not leave to appeal in the Court of Session

2, Correct

3, Yes, and Apoligies if i stated otherwise, Ruel 41 would have been followed in your appeal.

If you have any further question it would be easier if you called this office and I can give a more detailed and accurate response.

I sent another email to the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Now that we have confirmed that Rule 41 was followed in my appeal, can you answer the following questions:

1: It is the decision of the Deputy Principal Clerk and/or a single Judge to determine whether this appeal is competent, is that correct?

2: It does not go in front of the Inner House unless it is deemed competent either by the Deputy Principal Clerk and/or a single Judge, is that correct?

3: Where in Rule 41 does it state that the Respondent can be represented at all during this appeal process?

Mr K McAlpine

I then received the following email reply from the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine,

The Deputy Principal Clerk may refer an appeal to a Single Judge any time before the cause is brought before the Inner House in relation to Competency (RoC 41.3A).

If there are no questions of Competency highlighted by the Deputy Principal Clerk then the case will be placed before the Inner House for consideration.

Every party to the action has a right to be represtended in an Appeal.

Gavin McLeod

From the last email I now had more questions and sent a further email to the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for clarifying that Rule 41 requires the Deputy Principal Clerk and/or a single Judge to determine the competency of an appeal. I now have another couple of questions:

1: Why did I have three hearings on the competency of my appeal before the Inner House?

2: Why was the Respondent able to question the competency of my appeal at all?

3: Where in Rule 41 does it state that the Respondent can be represented at all during this appeal process?

Please answer the specific questions, and quote the actual Rule in question 3.

Mr K McAlpine

After about an hour, I received the following email reply from the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Mr McApline,

If the Inner House raises questions in relation to the competency of an appeal then they are quite within the right to do so. They have obviously made a Judicial decision in relation to this and I cannot comment upon their decisions or what happend at the hearings.

The Repondent can also bring up the question of Cometency in the Inner House, This was/might have been their basis of their Answers

Rule of Court 41.22 makes reference to Answers being lodged and motions for further procedure. There might not be a specific rule under Chapter 41 for the Respondent being represented in an appeal, but this will be governed by Primary Legislation, and one that I do not have time to look into for you Mr McApline.

I hope this answers all your questions.

Gavin McLeod

Again, I still had more questions and sent another email to the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

I have further questions:

1: Rule of Court 41.22 is only applicable to appeals lodged in form 41.19, is that correct?

2: Rule of Court 41.22 does not apply to my appeal that was lodged in form 40.2, is that correct?

3: You cannot identify in Rule 41 anywhere that states that the Respondent can be represented, is that correct?

4: Why was the Respondent represented in this appeal at all?

5: Why am I liable for the Respondents expenses, when the Respondent should not have been represented at all during this appeal?

Mr K McAlpine

It was now the middle of the afternoon on what was becoming an extremely long and frustrating afternoon, and I received another email from the Inner House of the Court of Session::

Mr McApline,

These are all matters for you, should you wish to raise them at the opposed hearing for expenses. Your case before the Appeal court has now concluded with only expenses to be considered.

I am sorry but, there is no futher advise or guidance I can issue you at this stage, any further appeal should be made to the UK Supreme Court.

Gavin McLeod

Because I was not obtaining any clear clarification, I sent the following email to the Inner House of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

From our long email chain, Rule 41 should work like this:

1: Rule 41 applies to appeals from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) (Rule 41.1).

2: I lodge appeal with Court of Session in Form 40.20 as permission to appeal has been refused by Employment Appeal Tribunal (Rule 41.2).

3: If the appeal is competent, as outlined in Rule 41.3 (including 41.3A and 41.3B), then Rule 41 Part II is followed (Rules 41.3, 41.3A and 41.3B).

4: The Clerk of the EAT notifies interested parties (ie: Respondent), and parties can lodge answers with Clerk of EAT (Rules 41.4 to 41.7).

5: The EAT decides whether to state a case or not regarding my appeal, and includes any answers lodged by parties (ie: Respondent) (Rules 41.8 to 41.9).

6: I decide whether to proceed with case (appeal) or not (Rule 41.10).

7: I lodge the case (appeal) in court (Rule 41.11).

8: I apply by motion for the Inner House to hear the appeal as well as any EAT stated case (Rule 41.15).

In essence, this case is always "Appellant v EAT", and if any Respondent wishes to lodge answers they can do so via the EAT.

This case should never have been "Appellant v Oracle Corporation UK Ltd", as it is an appeal against a decision of the EAT.

If you disagree with any of this summary, please specify what you disagree with and the reasons you disagree.

I must say that it is disgraceful that the highest 'Court' in Scotland is not following its own Rules, and just makes it up as it goes along.

Mr K McAlpine

The last email I received from the Inner House of the Court of Session that day read as follows:

Mr McAlpine,

Please refer to my previous email, if you wish to raise any matters you should do so either at the opposed motion for Expenses, or by appeal to the UK Supreme Courts.

Many thanks

Gavin McLeod

The next day I received the following email from the Disability Law Service:

Dear Mr McAlpline

I am writing in response to your email dated 21 February 2010.

I understand that you were dismissed in 2006 and that you have taken a claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. I understand that your case is to go before either the Supreme Court or European Court of Justice. You have asked for legal advice and representation in this matter.

Unfortunately the Disability Law Service is a small charity based in London and as a result we are only able to take cases in London and South East England. We are therefore unable to provide legal advice and representation for cases in Scotland.

If you require legal advice and representation you should contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland. If they consider that your case may set an important legal precedent then they may be prepared to support you in this action. If they cannot support you then they may be able to provide you with details of organisations in your area that may be able to offer some assistance.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/scotland/

telephone: 0845 604 5510

I hope this is useful.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Eastwood

Just after lunch I received an email from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine.

Thank you for contacting the Disability Helpline for the Equality and Human Rights Commission regarding your employment issue. May I apologise for the delayed response; this is due to the high level of demand for the Helpline's services.

With regards to your enquiry, the commission was unable to offer you legal assistance with this matter as there were insufficient details, for the commission to make an assessment of your case or its suitability for further action.

The commission will look at a case of potential discrimination that falls under our strategy priorities and that involves one of the strands that we advice on.

In relation to disabilities this includes:

Disability

UK ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Progress towards definition of disability based on the social model of disability.

Protection against discrimination to apply to association (await ECJ judgment in Coleman –v Attridge Law following favourable opinion of the Advocate General) and to perception.

Discrimination outside the field of employment:

* Duty to make reasonable adjustments.

* Access to the built and natural environment

Education:

* Overlap/gaps between rights and remedies for SEN/additional support for learning under education law and under the DDA.

* Bullying and harassment.

* Differential achievement rates.

* Access to pre-school, post-16 education and LEA/local authority related services.

* General qualification bodies.

* Extent of reasonable adjustment duty.

Goods, facilities and services:

* Failures to make anticipatory adjustments.

* Discrimination in access to health and child-care services.

* Insurance and other financial products.

Housing:

* Justification.

* Reasonable adjustments.

* Accessible housing - Lifetime Homes

Public functions:

* Justification test and trigger for duty to make reasonable adjustments.

* Planning and building control.

* Social care.

* Health services, including end of life issues.

* Criminal justice:

* Prisons and other places of detention,

* Police powers: arrest, interrogation, detention.

* Mental health:

* Action in response to the judgment in Bournewood - continuing illegal detentions,

* Access to justice.

Transport:

* Outstanding gaps in legal protection.

* Duty to make anticipatory reasonable adjustments.

* Regulations for taxis.

Employment discrimination:

* Persistent disadvantage and discrimination in employment: direct and disability-related discrimination and failure to comply with duty to make reasonable adjustments.

* Particular disadvantage of young disabled people.

* Access to suitable vocational training and support to enter/re-enter employment.

* Harassment.

Mental health:

* Access to justice.

* Social security and health.

Criminal law:

* Scope, application and effectiveness of higher tariff for offences motivated by disability hostility; promoting similar law in Scotland.

* Mental health as issue for defendants.

Disability Equality Duty ( see below - Public Sector Equality Duties)

* Using the duty to leverage increased support for independent living and improvements in social care.

Promoting extension of protection against discrimination to air travel and ferries/shipping.

On looking through your record the commission has not refused you assistance in relation to your enquiry, however we required further information.

If you have information to explain how your case would meet these strategy priorities, please could you provide us with this information.

Kind Regards

Jane Owen

Disability Helpline Advisor

Our vision

A society built on fairness and respect. People confident in all aspects of their diversity.

Legal disclaimer

This email has been originated in the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is an information and guidance service and not a legal advice service. If you require legal advice, please contact a solicitor(#).

This email message, including any attachments, is from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and is intended for the addressee only. It may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance of it.

Security warning: Please note that this email has been created in the knowledge that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium. We advise that you understand and accept this lack of security when emailing us. If this email message has been sent to you in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this email. The Equality and Human Rights Commission accepts no responsibility for any changes made to this message after it has been sent by the original author. This email or any of its attachments may contain data that falls within the scope of the Data Protection Acts. You must ensure that any handling or processing of such data by you is fully compliant with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1984 and 1998.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission was established by the Equality Act 2006 as the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.

(#) This paragraph does not apply to an individual who is assisted under section 28 Equality Act 2006

After reading this email I decided to send the Equality and Human Rights Commission the following email:

Dear Sir/Madam,

One of your strategy priorities is:

Employment discrimination:

* Persistent disadvantage and discrimination in employment: direct and disability-related discrimination and failure to comply with duty to make reasonable adjustments.

My employment discrimination case concerns the following:

During disclosure of documents, the Respondent, Oracle Corporation UK Ltd disclosed the following email to myself and the Tribunal, from Mr Philip Snowden, my Manager, which states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Simone/Cathy – given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

The follow-up to this email, from Catherine Temple, Senior HR Manager, stated:

"I want to make sure we are not making matters more complicated by trying to bring him back into a customer facing role, which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing"

Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, admitted in writing in the ET3 form that I had taken just two days sickness absence over the previous two years. The average UK employee takes eleven days sickness absence each year.

These emails were used to 'exit' me (make me redundant) from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, and were written seven weeks before I was provisionally selected for redundancy. I did not have high blood pressure.

This case has been through the ET, EAT and Court of Session, where I have mostly represented myself.

I have attached a document called "Brief", which contains these emails.

I require representation from the EHRC to take this to the Supreme Court within the next seven weeks, otherwise I will have to take this to the European Court of Human Rights.

There are currently around 245 million diabetics that will be severely disadvantaged in gaining and keeping employment if employers are allowed to make stereotypical assumptions that diabetes will result in future sickness absence.

Mr McAlpine

Later that evening I received the following email from Diabetes UK Scotland:

Thank you for contacting Diabetes UK Scotland. We have received your e mail and will try to respond as soon as possible.

If your enquiry is related to care you can call our Careline on 0845 120 2960 Mon-Fri 9-5.

Search the web and raise funds for Diabetes UK at www.everyclick.com/diabetesuk/

Diabetes UK, the charity for people with diabetes

Two days past before I received the following email, which contained no subject header or body text, just an attachment:

Attached to this email was

IN THE MATTER OF A PROPOSED PETITION

TO THE SUPREME COURT

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SESSION,

INNER HOUSE

RE: KENNETH McALPINE

1. I am asked to undertake this proposed case under the Bar direct access arrangements. I have read Mr. McAlpine's written submissions prepared for the Court of Session, Inner House on an application for permission to appeal a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal to reject his appeal against a decision of the Employment Tribunal dismissing his claim of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. He is diabetic.

2. The EAT rejected the appeal under rule 3(7) of the Employment Appeal tribunal Rules 1993, rules which apply both in Scotland and in England. The basis on which the rule can be invoked is where, on a preliminary review of a newly-lodged notice of appeal, the registrar or judge (in Mr. McAlpine's case it was a judge) determines that the notice of appeal discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the appeal, or is an abuse of the process, or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. The judge is required under the rules to give notice to the Appellant, and to give reasons.

3. I have not seen the original decision of the Employment Tribunal, nor the reasons given by the EAT, but I have read the judgment of the Court of Session, Inner House, given by Lady Dorrian. This makes clear that Mr. McAlpine exercised his right to an oral hearing before the EAT judge, who affirmed the decision taken on the papers, and he had an oral hearing on his application for permission to appeal before a 3-judge composition of the Inner House, where he developed extensive written submissions on "Law" and "Merits", which I have seen.

4. I am not a Scottish lawyer, so I am not familiar with the rules applicable to appeals from the Scottish courts to the Supreme Court. I strongly suspect that if an appeal is even possible from a decision refusing permission to appeal, then it will certainly itself require the permission of the Inner House or of the Supreme Court itself. In the English jurisdiction the possible avenues of appeal would by now have been exhausted, leave to appeal having been refused by the next level of court up from the EAT, which here would be the Court of Appeal.

5. It may be impossible under the rules relating to Scottish appeals, or it may be possible but will require the immediate preparation of a draft petition for permission to appeal, which in turn cannot be prepared without sight of all the documents in the case. I have not settled such a petition as the Supreme Court has only been in existence since October last year, but the procedure is similar to the former procedure of the House of Lords, and I would need at least a full working week to settle such a petition in a case I had not dealt with below. The likely cost would be approximately £10,000. It will in any event be certain to fail unless there is a point of law of general public importance raised.

6. Mr. McAlpine's central point, which he says deserves to be ventilated before the Supreme Court and/or the European Court of Justice or European Court of Human Rights, is that the case involves the "stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences" and he has two emails which he says prove that this was causally connected to the decision of his employer to make him redundant.

7. This may give cause to question a conclusion of the Employment Tribunal, but it is clear that the conclusion was one of fact and was made on evidence. That is not a point of law of general public importance It is not the case, so far as I can discern, that any of the three levels of the judiciary to have considered the matter seem to have thought that diabetes is not a disability, for example, which just possibly might be such a point.

8. I therefore have to advise Mr. McAlpine as to his proposed appeal

(a) He probably needs the services of a Scottish lawyer, but having said as much I can also say

(b) It may be procedurally impossible

(c) Even if it is procedurally possible, it is pretty much certain to fail because there does not seem to be anything in the case which raises a point of law of general public importance

9. I cannot therefore accept his case

ROBIN HOWARD

Tanfield Chambers

4 March 2010

What I took from the above document was that the case involves the "stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences" and "That is not a point of law of general public importance".

Later that afternoon I sent the following email to the European Court of Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can you provide an update for Application Number 40103/08.

I also received an email reply from the law firm Landau Zeffertt Weir based in London:

Dear Kenneth,

Thank you for completing the Employment Questionnaire.

Unfortunately, I have several Tribunal cases which are due to be heard over the coming few months and I have been forced to limit the number of cases I am able take on.

I would not therefore be able to give your matter the amount of attention it clearly requires.

In any event I would be unable to represent you in either the Supreme Court or the European Court.

I do, however, wish you success and I am sorry that I have been unable to assist on this occasion.

Yours sincerely

Philip Landau

That evening I sent the following email to the International Diabetes Federation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am currently involved in an application to The European Court of Human Rights in a case of diabetes discrimination, and wish to know whether the International Diabetes Federation can help me as I am unrepresented (I do not have a lawyer) and have been fighting a multinational organisation represented by a multinational legal firm as well as the Scottish legal system and Judiciary in this disgraceful discrimination.

This case involves the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences. I have an email from my ex-employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

This email, as well as another email, was used to 'exit' me (dismiss me) from my ex-employer who admitted in writing that I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eleven days sick leave each year. I also did not have high blood pressure.

There are approximately 245 million people with diabetes worldwide. If diabetes is viewed as resulting in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, then the rights and freedoms to not be discriminated against, of some 245 million people, will not be secured.

I trust that the International Diabetes Federation can either support me, represent me, or obtain representation for me, regarding fighting this discrimination in the European Court of Human Rights.

Thank you.

Two days later I sent an email to Diabetes UK:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I require representation from Diabetes UK to take this case to the Supreme Court. It has already been through the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Session.

This case involves the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences. I have an email from my ex employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

The follow-up to this email, from a Senior HR Manager, stated:

"I want to make sure we are not making matters more complicated by trying to bring him back into a customer facing role, which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing"

I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eleven days sick leave each year. I did not have high blood pressure.

I have had to represent myself most of the way through these Tribunals and Courts, and I have not had a fair hearing at any of the Tribunals and Court of Session.

Diabetes UK could use the services of the Free Representation Unit to take this to the Supreme Court, and overturn this disgraceful sterotypical assumption that diabetes will result in prolonged period of time off due to illness that will impact the employment prospects of every diabetic (Type 1 and Type 2).

Mr K McAlpine.

The next day I received the following email regarding a freedom of information request sent to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Mr McAlpine

Our Ref: FOI295

8th March 2010

Subject: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your recent email dated and received on 26th February 2010. Your request for a list of cases assisted under s28 of the Equality Act was forwarded to the Corporate Communications Team to handle as a Freedom of Information request.

I am writing to advise you that your request is being handled under our Freedom of Information procedures and has been passed to the relevant business unit within the Commission for their response. In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we will respond to you as soon as possible and no later than 20 working days following the date of receipt of the request. In this instance a response will be with you by 26th March 2010.

If for any reason we are not able to meet this deadline, we will notify you as soon as possible and give you an indication of when we will send you a full response.

If you have any queries please contact us using the details below.

Yours sincerely,

Philippa Bullen

Corporate Communications Officer

Equality and Human Rights Commission

The next morning I sent another email to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and also Enable, part of the United Nations, and the International Diabetes Federation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent you an email around a week ago regarding discrimination against Diabetics, but have not received a reply.

Can you let me know when I can expect a reply?

Thanks,

The next morning I received the following email from Diabetes UK:

Dear Mr McGregor

Thank you for your message which has been passed to me in the Advocacy Service to respond to.

I am very sorry to hear that your case has been unsuccessful so far Unfortunately we cannot refer you to the Free Representation Unit as the Unit are unable to take cases to the Supreme Court.

I am very sorry that Diabetes UK cannot offer assistance on this occasion.

Best Regards

Jennifer

About an hour later I sent an email reply to Diabetes UK:

Dear Sir/Madam,

My name is Mr McAlpine.

You stated in your last email that "Diabetes UK cannot offer assistance on this occasion".

This reads like Diabetes UK can offer assistance on certain occasions, can you inform me on what certain occasions that Diabetes UK can help?

Mr McAlpine

A few hours later I received another email from Diabetes UK:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Apologies if my last email was unclear.

I was referring to your request for Diabetes UK to make an application on your behalf to the Free Representation Unit. Diabetes UK is a referral agency to the Free Representation Unit and, if the case meets their criteria, we can make an application for assistance.

The Unit will consider referrals which are to be heard before the employment tribunal and appeals from decisions of the employment tribunal but is unable to assist with cases to be heard in the Supreme Court.

I have attached a copy of our Advocacy Service information sheet which gives more information about the Advocacy Service and how we can help.

Best Regards

I immedaitely sent the following email reply to Diabetes UK:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Is Diabetes UK going to write, on behalf of the tens of thousands of diabetics, to the Equality and Human Rights Commission outlining their disgust at the stereotypical assumption made against diabetes:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

If Diabetes UK are not able to represent the rights of diabetics, then The Equality and Human Rights Commission should be able to represent the rights of diabetics, so that no assumptions of future sickness absences made against diabetes which would result in employment problems for all diabetics.

If you can write to The Equality and Human Rights Commission and ask them to challenge this 'judgment' in the Supreme Court, that should help diabetics secure employment in the future.

Mr K McAlpine

Around the 10 March 2010 I received the following letter from the Financial Ombudsman Service:

Financial Ombudsman Service

South Quay Plaza

183 Marsh Wall

London

E14 9SR

our ref 7621674/JML/W304

Mr K R McAlpine

9 March 2010

Dear Mr McAlpine

Your complaint about Society of Lloyd's

This letter is to confirm that your file is awaiting attention by the Ombudsman. I will write to you again as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Yours sincerely

Johanna Lowe

Adjudicator

That same day I also received a second letter from the Financial Ombudsman Service:

Financial Ombudsman Service

South Quay Plaza

183 Marsh Wall

London

E14 9SR

our ref 7621674/BM/W304

Mr K R McAlpine

9 March 2010

Dear Mr McAlpine

Your complaint about The Society of Lloyd's

I am writing to update you about your complaint against Society of Lloyds.

I am very sorry that we are not yet in a position to review your complaint - ready for an ombudsman's final decision - as we explained we would do. The delay is due to the very large number of cases where consumers and businesses have now requested a decision by an ombudsman.

At this stage, I can confirm that we have everything we need from you. However, if you have any other information that you would like to be considered, I would be grateful if you could send it to us.

In the meantime, we are most grateful for your continued patience. If you need to contact us about anything, please phone us on 020 7093 5500 (office hours), email us at casework.supportfinancial-ombudsman.org.uk, or write to the casework-support team at the above address.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Home

ombudsman administrator

On 11 March 2010 I received the following email from Diabetes UK:

Dear Mr McAlpine

We can appreciate your frustration at the situation you have experienced and your desire to take this further. Diabetes UK recognises that discrimination in employment does occur although from our experience, this seems to be isolated cases such as your own, rather than widespread discrimination against people with diabetes in employment.

We do, however, believe that no-one with diabetes should be discriminated against and therefore do what we can to support people who believe that this is happening to them. It is unfortunate that in your own case, we have not been able to assist you in resolving your situation to your satisfaction thus far and now that your case has risen as far as the Supreme Court, there is little that we are in a position to do.

You are welcome to contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission and request that they take your case forward; we do not have a partnership with them that allows us to request that they take on specific cases.

Best Regards

After reading and digesting this email, I sent the following email to Diabetes UK:

Dear Sir/Madam,

You do not need a partnership with the EHRC, you represent some 3 million UK citizens with Diabetes who have been discriminated against with the statement

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

Please note that it did not say "Mr McAlpine" in the statement above, it is saying "diabetes" could "result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

Diabetes UK Advocacy is meant to provide, and I quote directly from your Advocacy leaflet:

Advocacy is about taking action to help people:

* secure their rights and entitlements

* have their interests represented

Advocates work in partnership with the people they support and take their side. Advocacy promotes social inclusion, equality and social justice.

All diabetics, have a right to employment without discrimination, that is simply not happening as only 30% of people with a disability are in employment, whereas 81% of people without a disability are in employment (last census 2001).

You, Diabetes UK, are not securing their right to employment without discrimination, why, because you are doing nothing, despite diabetics paying an annual subscription to you. As a consequence of your inaction, you are also not representing their interests to secure and maintain employment without discrimination.

You, Diabetes UK, state that you promote social inclusion, equality and social justice, but from what you have previously said, you do not.

Unfortunately, I now have a lifetime membership to Diabetes UK, so I do not pay you a penny, otherwise I would have cancelled my subscription a few years ago.

I will now be including all emails from myself to Diabetes UK and your replies to any future appeals to The Supreme Court, The European Court of Human Rights and The United Nations. All Diabetics have a right to know what they are getting, or not getting, with their annual subscription.

Mr K McAlpine

Late on 11 March 2010 I received the following email reply from the United Nations Enable organisation:

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

We are in receipt of both your e-mails for which we thank you. We are very sorry for what you are going through.

We believe that WHO is best equipped to respond to your questions. They would best advise as to how diabetes is acknowledged and under what category.

Please contact:

World Health Organization

Avenue Appia 20

1211 Geneva 27

Switzerland

Telephone: + 41 22 791 21 11

Facsimile (fax): + 41 22 791 31 11

For general information

If you would like to request general information about WHO or current WHO events, please e-mail info@who.int

We wish you well.

Sincerely,

Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The next morning I sent the following email reply to the United Nations Enable organisation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I do not believe that WHO is best equipped to respond to any of my questions, they are the World Health Organization and do not seem to deal with discrimination.

You, United Nations Enable organisation, promote the rights of persons with a disability, and write the Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, so you are the single best organisation to help with diabetes discrimination.

As you are also a part of the United Nations, you are best placed to answer my questions regarding the United Nations, which are:

1: Can I appeal to the United Nations regarding this discrimination of some 245 million people?

2: When can I appeal, now or only after my case is decided in The European Court of Human Rights?

3: As this case has been through all legal Courts in the UK, where discrimination was dismissed, can I also make a formal complaint to the United Nations regarding the UK legal system?

Mr McAlpine

That same morning I sent an email to the Financial Ombudsman Service:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

I cannot remember if I have made you aware of this before:

* Lloyds is the insurance company that have refused me insurance cover.

* Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is my old employer who I took to ET, EAT and Court of Session.

* Lloyds is a customer of Oracle Corporation.

Why do I know this? I worked as an Oracle Project Manager on the implementation of the Oracle system at Lloyds.

Mr McAlpine

Chapter 7

It was now 12 March 2010 and I sent the following email to Interights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am currently involved in an application to either the Supreme Court or The European Court of Human Rights in a case of disability discrimination.

This case involves the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences. I have an email from my ex-employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

This email, as well as another, was used to 'exit' me (dismiss me) from my ex-employer who admitted in writing that I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eleven days sick leave each year. I also did not have high blood pressure.

There are approximately 245 million people with diabetes worldwide. If diabetes is viewed as resulting in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, then the rights and freedoms to not be discriminated against, of some 245 million people, will not be secured.

I am representing myself, if you can provide any assistance I would be most grateful.

Six days later I received a letter through the post that read:

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FOURTH SECTION

18 March 2010

Application no. 40103/08

McAlpine v. the United Kingdom

Dear Sir,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 10 March 2010, the content of which has been noted. It has been included in the file concerning the above application.

The Court will probably examine the above case by the end of the year.

You will be informed of any decision taken by the Court in regard to the application.

Yours faithfully,

For the Registrar

Paul Harvey

Legal Secretary

On 26 March 2010 the following email arrived in my inbox:

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Our Ref: FOI295

26th March 2010

Subject: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

Thank you for your email dated and received on 26th February 2010, in which you make the following Freedom of Information request:

* 'Are you able to help anyone with any discrimination under Section 28 of the Equality Act? If so, can you please list cases where you have helped'

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the Act") obliges us to respond to a request promptly and in any case no later than 20 working days after receiving the request. However, when a qualified exemption applies to the information and the public interest test is engaged, the Act allows for the time to respond to be extended longer than 20 working days, and a full response must be provided within such a time as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. We do, of course, aim to make all decisions within 20 working days.

We are of the view that a number of exemptions may be engaged therefore requiring an assessment of the public interest test in disclosure of the relevant information including:

S 40 Personal Information – the information requested includes personal information disclosed by a third party including the individual names of those taking the case.

S 41 Information provided in confidence – the information was supplied to us by a third party for the purpose of supporting a case and may therefore have been provided in confidence.

The Commission, therefore, needs to extend the time to respond to your request to no later than 13th April 2010. We will, in any event, endeavor to respond to you as soon as possible before this time. If it appears that this will take longer than this date then we will contact you again.

If you are unhappy with our response and wish to request an internal review then please write to the Corporate Communications Centre at the address below.

During the internal review the handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff afresh.

If following the review you are still not content with our response you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) at:-

The Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Generally the ICO cannot provide a decision until you have exhausted the internal review process within the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

If the Commission can be of any further assistance please contact us on the details below.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Cook

Six days past when I received the following email from the United Nations:

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

We have not forgotten your request. We receive a heavy amount of e-mails per day and we make every attempt to answer each one in the order each was received.

We have made inquiries into your questions. The United Nations does not have a court set up for country/member state discrimination per se. What we can inform is that the UK has ratified the Convention on the Rights of persons with Disabilities on 8 June 2009 and subsequently ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on 7 August 2009 which gives you an arena in which you can voice your complaints.

For such matters, kindly send your communication to the Petitions Unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which handles all communications submitted under Optional Protocols of human rights treaty bodies: tb-petitions@ohchr.org. Further information on existing treaty monitoring bodies can be found at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/disability/treaties.htm

Please also note the email address for communications to be addressed by the human rights "special procedures": urgent-action@ohchr.org. Further information on special procedures can be found at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/

You have already taken the step of presenting your complaint to your country's local courts. Unfortunately, there is no United Nations court for discrimination as you would see set up in the form of tribunals in areas such as the Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and The Hague.

Please present your concerns to the above mentioned e-mail addresses that monitor human rights complaints concerning disabilities as you would have the right to do so since your country ratified the Optional Protocol.

Sincerely,

Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Mailing address: 2 UN Plaza, DC2-1311, New York, NY 10017

Another twelve days went by before I received an email from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Mr McAlpine

Our Ref: FOI295

14th April 2010

Subject: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

Dear Mr McAlpine,

On 26th March 2010 we wrote to advise you that we considered exemptions may be engaged and therefore we needed additional time to carry out the public interest test.

We had hoped to be able to complete our considerations and provide you with a response by today, but regrettably we are not yet in a position to respond.

We will however, endeavour to respond to you at the earliest opportunity and we will be in contact with you again no later than the 30th April 2010.

Please accept our sincere apologies for this delay.

Yours sincerely,

Philippa Bullen

Corporate Communications Officer

On 28 April 2010 I sent the following email to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been referred to your email address from the Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

My initial email to Enable was:

I am currently involved in an application to The European Court of Human Rights in a case of disability discrimination, and wish to know what my rights are for appealing to the United Nations.

This case involves the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences. I have an email from my ex-employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

This email, as well as another, was used to 'exit' me (dismiss me) from my ex-employer who admitted in writing that I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eight days sick leave each year. I also did not have high blood pressure.

There are approximately 245 million people with diabetes worldwide. If diabetes is viewed as resulting in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, then the rights and freedoms to not be discriminated against, of some 245 million people, will not be secured.

My questions are:

1: How can you help with this discrimination?

2: Can I appeal to the United Nations regarding this discrimination of some 245 million people?

3: When can I appeal, now or only after my case is decided in The European Court of Human Rights?

4: As this case has been through all legal Courts in the UK, where discrimination was dismissed, can I also make a formal complaint to the United Nations regarding the UK legal system?

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

That same morning I also sent an email to the International Diabetes Federation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent you an email around two weeks ago regarding discrimination against Diabetics, but have not received a reply.

Can you let me know when I can expect a reply?

Thanks,

Two days later I received the following email reply from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Mr K McAlpine

Our Ref: FOI295

30th April 2010

Subject: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your email dated and received on 26th February 2010.

On 3rd March 2010 a Helpline Adviser responded to the key issues raised in your email and has asked the Corporate Communications Team to respond to questions one and two. These questions have been addressed separately as they are considered to be requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

Request

Your questions which have been treated as a request under the Freedom of Information Act are:

1. Are you able to help anyone with any discrimination under Section 28 of the Equality Act?

2. If so, can you please list cases where you have helped.

Answer

Since the Commission opened in October 2007 it has supported 121 cases under Section 28 of the Equality Act.

Regrettably, we are not in a position to provide any further information at this stage as we need some additional time to consider the data rights of the relevant third parties.

We will endeavour to provide you with a full response as soon as possible and in any event will contact you again by 14th May 2010.

In the meantime you can find details of some of these section 28 assisted cases in the following documents:

One year, ten stories

Two years making changes

Please accept our apologies for the delays you have experienced in receiving a full response.

Yours sincerely,

Philippa Bullen

Corporate Communications Officer

It was now 11 May 2010 when I sent yet another email to the International Diabetes Federation, as I had yet to receive a reply.

The next day I posted the following letter to the European Court of Human Rights:

IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

B E T W E E N:

KENNETH ROBERT MCALPINE (Applicant)

-and-

UNITED KINGDOM (Respondent)

APPLICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 34 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND RULES 45 AND 47 OF THE COURT

I. THE PARTIES

A. THE APPLICANT

This section was completed with my personal details and contact details.

B. THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTY

13. United Kingdom

Preferred Language: English

II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

14. Introduction

On 12 August 1964, Kenneth Robert McAlpine (the Applicant) was born. In 1966 the Applicant was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus (Type 1) at age eighteen months, which is insulin dependent diabetes controlled by daily injections of insulin. The Disability Discrimination Act in the United Kingdom covers this form of diabetes.

On 12 August 1998, the Applicant started work for Oracle Corporation UK Limited, as a Consultant, and in July 2004 started work in the role of On Demand Service Delivery Manager (oSDM) having the job title "Service Delivery Manager" in the On Demand group, part of the Support organisation.

On the 25 May 2006, the Applicant received a phone call from his manager, Mr Philip Snowden, who informed him that he had to attend a meeting in the Edinburgh office on 30 May 2006. No reason was given for the meeting.

At the meeting on 30 May 2006, the Applicant was informed by a Director that he had been provisionally selected for redundancy.

The Applicant was made redundant on 10 July 2006.

The Applicant presented a complaint to the Employment Tribunals Service on 25 August 2006 claiming that his dismissal from the employment of Oracle Corporation UK Limited had been unfair and that he had been discriminated against contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act.

During disclosure of documents, Oracle Corporation UK Limited disclosed the following emails to the Applicant, the first email from Mr Philip Snowden, the Applicant's Manager,  page 88, which states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Simone/Cathy – given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

The follow-up to this email, from Catherine Temple, Senior HR Manager,  page 89, stated:

"I want to make sure we are not making matters more complicated by trying to bring him back into a customer facing role, which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited admitted in writing in the ET3 form that the Applicant had taken just two days sickness absence over the previous two years,  page 90. The average UK employee takes eight days sickness absence each year.

At the full hearing on merits at the Employment Tribunal in Glasgow on 2, 3 and 4 July and 6 August 2007, both the claim for unfair dismissal and the claim for disability discrimination were dismissed,  page 25.

The Applicant, now represented by a Pro-Bono Solicitor, then presented an appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal on 24 October 2007, which did not even get by the sift process,  page 63, and then presented this appeal in front of a Judge sitting alone at a Rule 3(10) hearing on 20 June 2008,  page 65.

The Applicant then presented an appeal at the Court of Session that was opposed by Oracle Corporation UK Limited, and which was dismissed in its entirety at the opposition hearing. The judgment dismissing this appeal in its entirety was issued on 12 February 2010,  page 76.

The Applicant then emailed the Court of Session judgment to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on 12 February 2010 asking the Supreme Court if they had jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The Supreme Court replied to this email on 12 February 2010 stating that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction,  page 87.

III. STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATION(S) OF THE CONVENTION AND/OR PROTOCOLS AND OF RELEVANT ARGUMENTS

15. Violations

The following alleged violations will be under two main headings, alleged violations of Article 14 in conjunction with other Articles, and various alleged violations of Article 6(1).

The Applicant requests that this court consider each violation on its own, as discrimination of some 245 million diabetics may have violated more than one article or protocol in the convention.

* Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination

Article 14 states:

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

The judgments of the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Session were a violation of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination.

Every diabetic has fundamental "rights and freedoms" to not have a stereotypical assumption made about them, which assumes that they will have 'prolonged period of time off due to illness', as this is only an assumption, not based on any fact, against the whole stereotypical group, diabetics, and as such is discrimination of diabetics "rights and freedoms".

Relevant arguments are as follows:

A stereotypical assumption of diabetes was made, when Oracle Corporation UK Limited stated:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

\-  Page 88

This statement constitutes a stereotypical assumption according to the Disability Rights Commission, Code of Practice, Employment and Occupation, Section 4.8, which states:

"4.8 Consequently, if the less favourable treatment occurs because of the employer's generalised, or stereotypical, assumptions about the disability or its effects, it is likely to be direct discrimination. This is because an employer would not normally make such assumptions about a non-disabled person, but would instead consider his individual abilities."

\-  Page 122

In the Disability Rights Commission, Code of Practice, Employment and Occupation, Section 4.8, the stereotype was "diabetes", and the assumption was "prolonged period of time off due to illness", an assumption of future illness, which is not based on any facts.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part II, Section 3A(5) states:

"(5) A person directly discriminates against a disabled person if, on the ground of the disabled person's disability, he treats the disabled person less favourably than he treats or would treat a person not having that particular disability whose relevant circumstances, including his abilities, are the same as, or not materially different from, those of the disabled person."

\-  Page 123

In The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part II, Section 3A(5), the disability was diabetes, the less favourable treatment was the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness, an assumption that would not be made for a person not having that particular disability.

* Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol 1

Article 1 of Protocol 1 states:

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The judgments of the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Session were a violation of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination when taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol 1 - Protection of property.

Every diabetic has fundamental rights and freedoms to not have a stereotypical assumption made about them, which assumes that they will have 'prolonged period of time off due to illness', as this is only an assumption, not based on any fact, against the whole stereotypical group, diabetics, and as such is discrimination of diabetics rights and freedoms. Contracting States and international law provide for such protection for diabetics against such discrimination. If a contracting State does not follow their own laws outlawing discrimination particularly in employment, or follow international law outlawing discrimination, then diabetics will not be entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, including any salary and benefits enjoyed by that employment, or any awards of damages in law upon termination of that employment for discriminatory reasons.

Relevant arguments are as follows:

The United Kingdom has a statutory law, The Disability Discrimination Act, which is meant to prevent discrimination against everyone who has a disability.

The Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Session are judicial bodies set up by the United Kingdom to uphold statutory law, including The Disability Discrimination Act.

The Applicant had an exceptionally good case of direct disability discrimination according to The Disability Discrimination Act, where the stereotypical assumption, the less favourable treatment, was stated in writing in emails supplied by Oracle Corporation UK Limited, that also stated that due to the perceived long term sickness absence in the future, the Applicant had to be exited from the Organisation.

The United Kingdom and its judicial bodies failed to state at any point in the numerous hearings that disability discrimination had taken place, dismissing every argument that it was disability discrimination.

Therefore, the High Contracting Party, United Kingdom, has failed to secure within their jurisdiction the entitlement of diabetics to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions with regards to employment salary and benefits, and the depravation of diabetics of their possessions with regards to employment discrimination awards referred to in Article 1 of Protocol 1 in conjunction with discrimination referred to in Article 14.

* Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3

Article 3 states:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The judgments of the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Session were a violation of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination when taken in conjunction with Article 3.

Every diabetic should not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. This public authority in agreeing that no discrimination of diabetics has taken place, has discriminated against diabetics by subjecting diabetics to inhuman or degrading treatment.

Relevant arguments are as follows:

The High Contracting Party, United Kingdom, has a statutory law, The Disability Discrimination Act, whose sole purpose is to prevent discrimination against any person or persons with a disability. By not finding discrimination according to this statutory law, when it is so apparent, the public authority, the Tribunals and Courts, have subjected diabetics to inhuman or degrading treatment, by agreeing that all diabetics are somehow a sub class of humans whose future sickness can all be predicted with certainty.

* Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8

Article 8 states:

1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The judgments of the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Session were a violation of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination when taken in conjunction with Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life.

Every diabetic has a fundamental right to respect for private and family life, with "no interference by a public authority" in the "protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.". This public authority in agreeing that no discrimination of diabetics has taken place, has discriminated against diabetics by interfering with the rights of diabetics to respect for private and family life.

Relevant arguments are as follows:

The High Contracting Party, United Kingdom, has a statutory law, The Disability Discrimination Act, whose sole purpose is to prevent discrimination against any person or persons with a disability. By not finding discrimination according to this statutory law, when it is so apparent, the public authority, the Tribunals and Courts, have interfered with the exercise of this right by diabetics.

By stereotyping all diabetics, who lead individual lives, as a group of persons who are all going to have "prolonged period of time off due to illness", the protection of individual diabetics to respect for their private and family life have not been protected.

Therefore, the High Contracting Party, United Kingdom, has interfered with the exercise of the rights of the Applicant and all other diabetics by failing to secure within their jurisdiction the protection to respect for private and family life referred to in Article 8 by discriminating against diabetics as outlined in Article 14.

* Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 6(1)

Article 6(1) states:

1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

The judgments of the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Session were a violation of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination when taken in conjunction with Article 6(1) - Right to a fair trial.

Every diabetic, "In the determination of their civil rights and obligations" is entitled to a "fair hearing by an impartial tribunal established by law". When the UK has statutory laws, The Disability Discrimination Act, protecting against disability discrimination, and decides at numerous hearings not to uphold those laws, then diabetics have not had a "fair hearing by an impartial tribunal established by law" that has judged that discrimination has taken place.

Relevant arguments are as follows:

A stereotypical assumption of diabetes was made, when Oracle Corporation UK Limited stated:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

\-  Page 88

This statement constitutes a stereotypical assumption according to the Disability Rights Commission, Code of Practice, Employment and Occupation, Section 4.8, which states:

"4.8 Consequently, if the less favourable treatment occurs because of the employer's generalised, or stereotypical, assumptions about the disability or its effects, it is likely to be direct discrimination. This is because an employer would not normally make such assumptions about a non-disabled person, but would instead consider his individual abilities."

\-  Page 122

In the Disability Rights Commission, Code of Practice, Employment and Occupation, Section 4.8, the stereotype was "diabetes", and the assumption was "prolonged period of time off due to illness", an assumption of future illness, which is not based on any facts.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part II, Section 3A(5) states:

"(5) A person directly discriminates against a disabled person if, on the ground of the disabled person's disability, he treats the disabled person less favourably than he treats or would treat a person not having that particular disability whose relevant circumstances, including his abilities, are the same as, or not materially different from, those of the disabled person."

\-  Page 123

In The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part II, Section 3A(5), the disability was diabetes, the less favourable treatment was the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness, an assumption that would not be made for a person not having that particular disability.

Therefore, the High Contracting Party, United Kingdom, has failed to secure within their jurisdiction the civil rights of diabetics to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal referred to in Article 6(1), by not using the United Kingdom statutory law, The Disability Discrimination Act, to determine discrimination as outlined in Article 14.

* Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 17

Article 17 states:

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

The judgments of the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Session were a violation of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination when taken in conjunction with Article 17 - Prohibition of abuse of rights.

The United Kingdom, the Scottish Judiciary and Scottish legal system does not have "any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms" of diabetics to be subjected to discrimination.

Relevant arguments are as follows:

The High Contracting Party, United Kingdom, has statutory laws, whose sole purpose is not only to prevent discrimination based on disability, but to also prevent perverting the course of justice, witness collusion, witness perjury, fabricated evidence and altered evidence against any person or persons. By not finding discrimination based on disability, ignoring or not finding perverting the course of justice, witness collusion, witness perjury, fabricated evidence and altered evidence, according to statutory law, when it is so apparent that the public authority, the Tribunals and Courts, have engaged in activity or performed acts aimed at the destruction of the right of the Applicant, and all diabetics, to not be subjected to discrimination based on disability.

Therefore, the High Contracting Party, United Kingdom, have engaged in activity or performed acts aimed at the destruction of the right of the Applicant and all other diabetics by failing to secure within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms referred to in Article 17 by discriminating against diabetics as outlined in Article 14.

* Article 6(1) - Right to a fair trial

Article 6(1) states:

1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

The judgments of the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Session were a violation of Article 6(1) - Right to a fair trial.

The Applicant, including all diabetics, have fundamental civil rights to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal to not have a stereotypical assumption made about them, which assumes that they will have 'prolonged period of time off due to illness', as this is only an assumption, not based on any individual fact, against the whole stereotypical group, diabetics, which, due to discrimination being dismissed has not resulted in a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal.

* On Demand Service Delivery Manager (oSDM) Role

In the original Employment Tribunal judgment there were many references to the Applicant not performing the On Demand Service Delivery Manager (oSDM) role, or not performing the full oSDM role.

 Page 108 shows the Employment Tribunal form (ET1) lodged by the Applicant at the original Tribunal, and which states:

"4.2 Please say what job you do or did. Service Delivery Manager"

 Page 109 shows the Employment Tribunal form (ET3) lodged by the Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Limited) at the original Tribunal, and which states:

"3.3 Is the claimant's description of their job or job title correct? Yes"

 Page 110 states "It has been necessary to bring in an additional oSDM, Kenneth McAlpine...", when the Applicant was introduced to the Oracle and EA project team.

 Page 111 states "Kenneth McAlpine, Service Delivery Manager" in the organisation chart of the Respondent organisation (Oracle Corporation UK Limited) on 30 May 2006.

 Page 112 states "Service Delivery Manager" in the alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list of the Respondent organisation (Oracle Corporation UK Limited).

Page 30 shows the original Employment Tribunal judgment, at  paragraph 16, it states:

16. The claimant worked from home, and carried out a support role. This meant the claimant did not perform all the elements of the On Demand Service Delivery Manager (hereafter referred to as an oSDM) role.

As there was also reference made to the Applicant performing a Support role, it is worth pointing out at this stage that the line of business that the Applicant worked in is called "Support". In  page 111 in the organisation chart of the Respondent organisation (Oracle Corporation UK Limited) on the 30 May 2006, it lists Nick Cooper as a "Support Director". Does this mean that Nick Cooper was not performing the full Director role, but instead performing a support role?

The finding of the Tribunals and Courts that the Applicant did not work as a Service Delivery Manager clearly offends the rights to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal in Article 6(1) not only in the original hearing, but subsequent hearings. The job title of the Applicant was "Service Delivery Manager", the Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Limited) agreed that the Applicant worked as a Service Delivery Manager, and there were approximately fifty documents lodged in evidence that stated the Applicant worked as a Service Delivery Manager, all of which clearly offended the rights to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal in Article 6(1).

* Witness Collusion

Collusion Meaning and Definition:

An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights, by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.

Catherine Temple Witness Statement

"Simone Harch's statement then deals with her involvement with Mr McAlpine until April 2006."

\- Catherine Temple Witness Statement, page 114,  paragraph 7.

"Both Phil Snowden and Nick Cooper refer to this initiative in their statements."

\- Catherine Temple Witness Statement, page 115,  paragraph 12.

Malcolm Thompson Witness Statement

"I am aware of, and have read the statements of both Phil Snowden and Cathy Temple."

\- Malcolm Thompson Witness Statement, page 116,  paragraph 7.

Nicholas Cooper Witness Statement

"As his Manager and the person most closely involved, Phil Snowden's statement deals with all these matters."

\- Nicholas Cooper Witness Statement, page 117,  paragraph 6.

"The details of these discussions and e-mails are dealt with in Phil Snowden's and Cathy Temple's evidence."

\- Nicholas Cooper Witness Statement, page 118,  paragraph 23

These witness statements clearly offend the rights to a fair hearing in Article 6(1). The collusion of witnesses, witnesses reading other witnesses statements when producing their own statement, allowing each witness who has colluded to get their story correct and consistent with the other witnesses has clearly offended the right to a fair hearing in Article 6(1).

* Witness Perjury

Page 119 shows one page from the witness statement of Philip Snowden, the Applicant's Manager, which states:

"Due to the size and complexity of the EA account, there were already two other, standard role, SDMs working on the account, in addition to the On demand Project Manager, and an Executive Sponsor. This enabled a division of tasks which matched the requirements of Mr McAlpine described below. The two standard role SDMs on the account were Julie McFarlane (lead SDM) and Richard Marsden."

\- Witness Statement of Philip Snowden, Page 119,  Paragraph 8.

 Page 120 shows an email that states that only Julie McFarlane and Kenneth McAlpine are covering the Environment Agency (EA) account in July 2004.

 Page 121 is an email dated 30 September 2004 that shows that Richard Marsden has now joined the Environment Agency (EA) account.

This was by no means the only witness perjury, with other witness perjury stating future sickness absence had no impact at all on selection for redundancy, the 'Service Desk' or 'CIM' role resulted in redundancy, the Applicant had a 'non-customer facing', 'unique', 'support', 'limited' oSDM role, the Applicant and the NCCC and CEMLI projects,the Environment Agency (EA) work was 'tailing off' or 'diminishing' and there were no work conflicts between EA and General Electric (GE) work, the Applicant's position in the October 2005 talent grid, the Applicant did not perform the 'full SDM' role or the 'standard SDM' role, the oSDM Monthly Meeting was not a call, the Applicant was likely to be required to perform the full SDM role, the Applicant had not asked for any particular action to be taken, was there ever a United Kingdom collective redundancy at Oracle in 2006.

This witness perjury clearly offends the rights to a fair hearing in Article 6(1) not only in the original hearing, but subsequent hearings. The Tribunals and Courts placed reliance on witness statements that were untruthful, all of which clearly offended the rights to a fair hearing in Article 6(1).

* Altered Evidence

Page 50 shows the original Employment Tribunal judgment, at  paragraph 126, it states:

126. We concluded from the above that the claimant's allegation was unfounded and that the respondent had not deliberately altered, amended or removed documentation from the bundle of productions in order to improve their case at this Tribunal.

Why did the Tribunal use the word "deliberately", was it acceptable to the Tribunal to alter documents?

On 21 December 2006, the Applicant was sent one folder of documents from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd legal team entitled "Preliminary list of documents".

On 9 February 2006, the Applicant was sent another folder of documents from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd legal team entitled "Documents sent to Counsel 8 February 2007".

The alterations to documents outlined below are mainly when you compare the contents of the folders listed above, to the actual documents that were contained in the bundle of documents used at the original Employment Tribunal.

 Page 91 and page 92 when compared have the following differences "I will send by post copy of your Compromise Agreement and Leaver's checklist tomorrow morning.".  Page 93 and page 94 when compared have the following differences "I will send by post your Compromise Agreement (CA) and Leavers checklist (LC)" and "Amounts are available on your CA and LC".  Page 95 and page 96 when compared have the following differences "The paperwork refers to the Compromise Agreement (which was sent to you by post with the Leavers checklist).....".

 Page 97 and page 98 when compared have the following differences "NOTES FROM 1/3/06 |TO| WITH FRAN WINTERS (GE)", "After June go-live", "- Production & bugs issues" and "Get through go-live then review position".

 Page 99 and  page 100 when compared have the following differences "She advised that <name whitened out> has resigned so I have taken <name whitened out> off the list and she is going to confirm back re Kenneth and whether there are any others. She did ask who she should discuss the South Africa redundancies with and I suggested she have a chat with you about them (apologies if that's not right).".

Why were the words "Leavers checklist" whitened out from some of these documents?

Of course, this would severely undermine the Respondent's case that the Appellant was fairly dismissed, as sending the "Leavers checklist" just one day after provisionally selecting the Appellant for redundancy, with some 29 days left of the consultation period for the Appellant to find another role within the Respondent.

 Page 112 and page 113 when compared have the following handwritten differences in the alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list "7998 McAlpineKenneth" and "7998 McAlpine Kenneth".

Why is the Applicant's last name and employee number handwritten in a spreadsheet containing 149 employees all of whose details are typed?

Why are there two versions of all of these documents, when there should clearly only be one version?

There were many other documents lodged at the original Tribunal that had alterations or omissions.

The Appellant believes that documents were altered with the intent to improve Oracle Corporation UK Ltd case, and to detract from the Appellant's case at the Employment Tribunal.

The finding of the Tribunals and Courts that documents were not altered clearly offends the rights to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal in Article 6(1) not only in the original hearing, but subsequent hearings. The Tribunals and Courts placed reliance on evidence that was altered, all of which clearly offended the rights to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal in Article 6(1).

* Fabricated Evidence

Page 36 shows the original Employment Tribunal judgment, at  paragraph 50, it states:

50. Ms Temple confirmed that candidates for possible redundancy had been sought in February 2006, when senior Managers had been asked to identify employees in their area who may be at risk of redundancy due to the recent announcement of reorganisation. A Reduction In Force (RIF) list was compiled and the claimant's name was added to that list by Mr Malcolm Thompson (Mr Cooper's line manager).

 Page 101 shows the Employment Tribunal Index lodged at the original Tribunal, and which states:

No., Date, Document, Page

53, 7 February 2006, Template Oracle RIF sheet Support and OD, 329-339

 Pages 102 to 107 now show the Employment Tribunal Document 53 lodged by the Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Limited) at the original Tribunal, and which shows:

Type, Date, Subject, Page,

Email, 2 February 2006, [Strictly Confidential] RIF template, 102

Email, 23 March 2006, // Customer Care Professional, 105

Email, 21 February 2006, FW: Confidential, 106

Email, 4 February 2006, Confidential, 106

At the original Tribunal, Document 53 was lodged in evidence as one document. However this alleged document was made up of four emails meant to show one email chain in which Malcolm Thompson received the alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list early in February 2006.

Three of these emails were totally unconnected to one another, with different subject headings.

The dates of this alleged email chain are impossible. In a normal email chain, the most recent email is at the start or the top of the email chain, with older emails preceding this email in date and time order. In this alleged email chain you have the first email dated "2 February 2006", the second email dated "23 March 2006" and the third email dated "21 February 2006".

How can an email sent on "23 March 2006" be received on "2 February 2006"?

The finding of the Tribunals and Courts that the Applicant was placed on a Reduction In Force (RIF) list by Malcolm Thompson, clearly offends the rights to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal in Article 6(1) not only in the original hearing, but subsequent hearings. The Tribunals and Courts placed reliance on evidence that was fabricated, four emails, three of which are totally unrelated to each other, thrown together to link Malcolm Thompson to an alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list, all of which clearly offended the rights to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal in Article 6(1).

* The Missing Witness

Article 6(3)(d) states:

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

Page 58 shows the original Employment Tribunal judgment, at  paragraph 167, it states:

167. We were referred to Mr Thompson's witness statement where he stated that he had been unaware of the claimant's diabetes at the time of putting his name forward for the RIF list. The claimant did not have an opportunity to cross examine Mr Thompson regarding this matter, but Ms Temple spoke to this matter

Mr Thompson was referred to nineteen times in the judgment, and many of the important decisions are based on Mr Thompson's witness statement.

The finding of the Tribunals and Courts, based on a witness who did not attend the hearing and therefore could not be cross examined, clearly offends the rights to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal in Article 6(1) not only in the original hearing, but subsequent hearings.

* The Alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) List

Page 36 shows the original Employment Tribunal judgment, at  paragraphs 49 and 50, it states:

49. The need for redundancy, and the reasons for it, had been discussed at the respondent's employee consultation forum. In total 121 employees across the UK were made redundant.

50. Ms Temple confirmed that candidates for possible redundancy had been sought in February 2006, when senior Managers had been asked to identify employees in their area who may be at risk of redundancy due to the recent announcement of reorganisation. A Reduction In Force (RIF) list was compiled and the claimant's name was added to that list by Mr Malcolm Thompson (Mr Cooper's line manager). The RIF list was, at that stage, highly confidential and was not known of by Mr Snowden, Mr Cooper or the claimant.

 Page 112 shows one version of the alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list, that was lodged in evidence at the Employment Tribunal, which shows:

<Kenneth McAlpine's employee id number "7998" and surname "McAlpine" written by hand on a spreadsheet>

 Page 113 shows another version of the alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list, that was sent to the Applicant before the hearing at the Employment Tribunal, which shows:

<Kenneth McAlpine's employee id number "7998" and surname "McAlpine" written by hand on a spreadsheet in a slightly different position and slightly different handwriting>

Notice that in a document which spans some 12 A4 pages, and which allegedly contains some 149 United Kingdom employees to be allegedly made redundant in 2006, that everything is typed in this document apart from the Applicant's employee number and last name, which is handwritten. Not only that, but there are two versions of this document, with the handwritten Applicant's employee number and last name being in a slightly different position in each of the alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) lists.

The finding of the Tribunals and Courts that the Applicant was placed on an alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list by Malcolm Thompson, clearly offends the rights to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal in Article 6(1) not only in the original hearing, but subsequent hearings. The Tribunals and Courts placed reliance on evidence that was fabricated, handwritten to link Malcolm Thompson to an alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list, all of which clearly offended the rights to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal in Article 6(1).

IV. STATEMENT RELATIVE TO ARTICLE 35 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

16. Final decision

Date, Court, Nature of decision

12 February 2010, Supreme Court, No jurisdiction

17. Other decisions

Date, Court, Nature of decision

13 September 2007, Employment Tribunal, Dismissed all claims

28 August 2008, Employment Appeal Tribunal, Dismissed all appeal points

12 February 2010, Court of Session, Dismissed all appeal points

18. Is there or was there any other appeal or other remedy available to you which you have not used? If so, explain why you have not used it.

No.

V. STATEMENT OF THE OBJECT OF THE APPLICATION

The Applicant seeks:

A declaration that the rights of the Applicant in conjunction, or under Article 1 of Protocol 1, Article 3, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 14 and Article 17 of the Convention have been violated.

The Applicant also seeks reparation and damages arising out of the violation of the rights of the Applicant, including:

a) The original amount claimed in the original Employment Tribunal claim as a lost opportunity and reparation.

This would be just satisfaction for the Applicant, and the High Contracting Party, United Kingdom, can recover these costs from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd in the Courts if they so wish.

b) Any costs incurred in bringing this Application.

c) Any costs incurred in the domestic courts, including awards of legal expenses against the Applicant annulled.

VI. STATEMENT CONCERNING OTHER INTERNATIONAL PROCEEDINGS

20. Have you submitted the above complaints to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement? If so, give full details.

The Applicant has contacted the United Nations Enable organisation, which recommended contacting the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as this discrimination was a generalised stereotypical assumption against all diabetics.

VII. LIST OF DOCUMENTS

a) Application, Pages I - VIII

b) Attached Sheets between Mr K R McAlpine and United Kingdom, Pages 1 - 24

c) Judgment of the Employment Tribunal (13-Sep-07), Pages 25 - 62

d) Rule 3(7) Judgment of Employment Appeal Tribunal (19-Dec-07), Pages 63 - 64

e) Rule 3(10) Judgment of Employment Appeal Tribunal (28-Aug-08), Pages 65 - 75

f) Judgment of the Court of Session (12-Feb-10), Pages 76 - 86

g) Email from Supreme Court UK (12-Feb-10), Page 87

h) Email diabetes and future sickness absence (12-Apr-06), Page 88

i) Email future sickness absence and redundancy (13-Apr-06), Page 89

j) Applicants previous sickness absence, Page 90

k) Selection of some of the original and altered documents, Pages 91 - 100

l) Selection of some of the fabricated documents, Pages 101 - 107

m) Applicant's agreed job role and supporting evidence, Pages 108 - 111

n) The alleged RIF (Reduction In Force) list, Pages 112 - 113

o) Extracts from witness statements regarding witness collusion, Pages 114 - 118

p) Selection of one example of witness perjury, Pages 119 – 121

q) Disability Rights Commission, Code of Practice, Section 4.8, Page 122

r) Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part II, Section 3A(5), Page 123

s) News article, Page 124

Chapter 8

On 14 May 2010, I received the following email from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Mr K McAlpine

Our Ref: FOI295

14th May 2010

Subject: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Further to my email dated 30th April 2010. I am writing to let you know that, regrettably, we are not yet in a position to respond in full to your request.

We will endeavour to provide you with a full response as soon as possible and in any event will contact you again by 28th May 2010.

Please accept our sincere apologies for these ongoing delays.

Yours sincerely,

Philippa Bullen

Corporate Communications Officer

Four days later I sent the following email to the Financial Ombudsman Service:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached as requested the three judgments requested by yourself on the phonecall on 18 May 2010.

Attached to this email were the Court of Session, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Employment Tribunal judgements.

A week later I sent another email to the Financial Ombudsman Service:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to our telephone conversation and my voicemail on 24 May 2010, please find attached an email and attached document outlining the motion for expenses against me in the Court of Session.

This is a further consequence of my legal expenses cover giving me the wrong information (a grievance letter was required when it was a redundancy), and not allowing me my right to take my ex employer to Tribunal (legal expenses cover advised to settle only).

I have no idea when this motion will be called, and for how much, as my ex employer was represented by an Advocate (Barrister) and there was three hearings lasting approximately two days.

Mr K R McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Mr K McAlpine

Our Ref: FOI295

26th May 2010

Subject: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

Further to our emails dated 30th April 2010 and 14th May 2010, I am writing to let you know that, regrettably, we are still not yet in a position to respond in full to your request.

We will endeavour to provide you with a full response as soon as possible and in any event will contact you again by 9th June 2010.

Please accept our sincere apologies for these ongoing delays.

Yours sincerely,

Oliver Varney

Corporate Communications Officer

Around three days later I received the following letter through the post:

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Kenneth Robert McALPINE

FOURTH SECTION

ECHR-LE0.1R

PHA/gw

27 May 2010

Application no. 40103/08

McAlpine v. the United Kingdom

Dear Sir,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 12 May 2010 and the enclosed application form and documents. This will, as you suggest, be considered under the above application number.

Yours faithfully,

For the Registrar

Paul Harvey

Legal Secretary

On 8 June 2010 I received the following email from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Our Ref: FOI295

8th June 2010

Subject: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Further to my email dated 14th May 2010. I am writing to let you know that it is unlikely that we will be able to respond to your request by tomorrow as we had initially hoped.

We will continue to endeavour to provide you with a full response as soon as possible and in any event will contact you again by 24th June 2010.

Please accept our sincere apologies for these ongoing delays.

Yours sincerely,

Philippa Bullen

Corporate Communications Officer

Eight days later I sent the following email to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Your Reference XA156/08

With regards to our telephone conversation on 16 June 2010 at 9:15am regarding your correspondence of 3 June 2010, I am writing to confirm that I will be submitting written representations for the hearing scheduled for 1 July 2010 at 10:30am.

As outlined by yourself during our telephone conversation, I will submit written representations on 28/29 June 2010 by email to the Inner House.

Shortly after sending this email, I sent the following email to the International Diabetes Federation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent you an email around four weeks ago regarding discrimination against Diabetics, but have not received a reply.

Can you let me know when I can expect a reply?

Thanks,

Around lunchtime I sent the following email to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

In a previous correspondence to myself you quoted the case as Your Reference XA156/08

This was a case regarding another person and an appeal against the Immigration Tribunal.

My original case was case reference number XA165/08.

Can you update any records, send out another letter of your 3 June 2010 correspondence which reflects the correct case reference number (XA165/08), and make sure that all future correspondence quotes case reference number XA165/08, as well as any hearing listings.

Three hours later I received the following email from the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine

I apologise for the department inserting the wrong reference number on the letter that was sent to you on 3 June 2010. Please note that XA165/08 is the correct reference number.

The content of the letter is still correct.

The clerk of court has been notified and all future correspondence should contain the correct reference number.

Many thanks

Craig Anderson

Inner House Department

Four days later I received the following letter from the Financial Ombudsman Service:

Financial Ombudsman Service

our ref 7621674/JML/W304

Financial Ombudsman Service

South Quay Plaza

183 Marsh Wall

London

E14 9SR

18 June 2010

Dear Mr McAlpine

Your complaint about The Society of Lloyd's

As we have been unable to resolve your complaint informally, our next step is to refer the case to one of our ombudsmen for a decision. The ombudsman will consider carefully what you and Society of Lloyds have said, before deciding formally how the complaint should be settled.

Unfortunately, because of the very large number of complaints that are currently requiring a formal decision by an ombudsman, it may be a while before you will receive a decision on your case. However, I will write to you again as soon as possible - and certainly within two months - to keep in touch with you.

An ombudsman's decision is final. Once an ombudsman has decided a case, it will not be possible for us to look at the complaint again. No ombudsman, however senior, has the right to overrule the decision of another ombudsman.

However, if you decide not to accept the ombudsman's decision - when you receive it - you will be free to take your dispute to a court instead, But we will not be able to give you legal advice about any court requirements or restrictions (for example on time limits).

If you need to get in touch with us, while waiting for the ombudsman's decision on your case, please contact our casework support team, quoting reference 7621674/JML/W304.

Yours sincerely

Cassy Shaw

ombudsman assistant

On 24 June 2010 I sent the following email to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been referred to your email address from the Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

My initial email to Enable was:

I am currently involved in an application to The European Court of Human Rights in a case of disability discrimination, and wish to know what my rights are for appealing to the United Nations.

This case involves the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in future sickness absences. I have an email from my ex-employer, lodged in evidence that states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

This email, as well as another, was used to 'exit' me (dismiss me) from my ex-employer who admitted in writing that I had only taken two days sick leave in two years, the average UK employee takes eight days sick leave each year. I also did not have high blood pressure.

There are approximately 245 million people with diabetes worldwide. If diabetes is viewed as resulting in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, then the rights and freedoms to not be discriminated against, of some 245 million people, will not be secured.

My questions are:

1: How can you help with this discrimination?

2: Can I appeal to the United Nations regarding this discrimination of some 245 million people?

3: When can I appeal, now or only after my case is decided in The European Court of Human Rights?

4: As this case has been through all legal Courts in the UK, where discrimination was dismissed, can I also make a formal complaint to the United Nations regarding the UK legal system?

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Later that morning I sent an email to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Earlier this month you contacted me regarding an expenses hearing which had been arraged for 1 July 2010 at 10:30am.

I have a number of questions regarding this hearing:

1: Why has this expenses hearing not appeared on the rolls, if it has been arranged as early as the start of June 2010?

2: I have not received any correspondence from the respondent regarding the Respondents claim for expenses, so how can an Appellant prepare for a hearing if the Appellant does not know the Respondents case?

3: Under the Court of Session rules, how many days before a hearing should the Respondent send correspondence to the Appellant regarding the case?

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Later that day I received the following email from the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine

Your hearing on the 1st July 2010 will not appear on the Rolls of Court until the night before.

The respondents objection to the motion for expenses should include a reason for opposition which would have been intimated upon yourself prior to enrolment. At the hearing you will need to satisfy the court why expenses should be awarded in your favour.

Should you have any other enquiries I suggest you contact the Inner House & Extracts department direct on 0131 240 6748.

Many thanks

Immediately after reading this email I sent another email to Gavin McLeod at the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Perhaps you can answer my questions:

2: I have not received any correspondence from the respondent regarding the Respondents claim for expenses, so how can an Appellant prepare for a hearing if the Appellant does not know the Respondents case?

3: Under the Court of Session rules, how many days before a hearing should the Respondent send correspondence to the Appellant regarding the case?

Shortly after sending this email, I received the following email from the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine,

The respondents lodged a notice of opposition in the Court of Session on the 25/2/2010. In this the will have stated their grounds for opposition. You should prepare for your hearing to argue for your motion to be granted and persuade the judged to grant such.

Regarding time limits for correspondence being sent between parties, I am unaware of any time limites unless there has been a Judicial direction.

Gavin McLeod

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

It is the respondents who have lodged a motion for expenses in this case, not me. If this motion is granted, it is me, the Appellant who will be faced with paying the Respondents costs.

Surely when any party lodges a motion, they have to notify the other party of the motion.

I have received nothing from the respondent, not even a motion for expenses. The first I learned of any motion for expenses was from the Court of Session. How can anyone prepare for a case without knowing what the case concerns?

Mr McAlpine

I quickly received another email from the Court of Session:

Mr McAlipne,

Alologies for the mix up, you should have had sight of the motion that was enrolled by the other side. The motion should have been intimtated to you in terms of the rules of court, if this has not been done so then you can address the court on the matter.

I am sorry I cannot give you a more concrete answer.

Gavin McLeod

Later that afternoon I received the following email from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Mr K McAlpine

Our Ref: FOI295

24th June 2010

Subject: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Further to my email dated 8th June 2010, I am writing to let you know that the response to your Freedom of Information request has been prepared and has been sent to the relevant Director for final approval. I hope to be able to send you the response tomorrow but will let you know if there is any delay.

Yours sincerely,

Philippa Bullen

Corporate Communications Officer

Shortly after receiving this email I received an email reply from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

We acknowledge receipt of your email, with which you submit a complaint to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We note that you have submitted your complaint to the European Court of Human Rights and wish to draw your attention to article 2, paragraph c, of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities, which provides that the Committee shall consider a communication inadmissible, when the same matter has been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Yours sincerely,

Petitions Unit

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

The last email I sent that day was to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your last email which explained that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights cannot examine a case concerning the Rights of Persons with disabilities, when the person with a disability has submitted the matter to The European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights is only examining matters concerning The European Convention on Human Rights and not matters concerning the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities.

So I would suggest that article 2, paragraph c, of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities does not apply as it is two different matters under two different Conventions.

Can you confirm that this is correct?

Thanks,

The next day I sent an email to the United Nations Enable organisation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

In your last email to me on 1 April 2010 you stated that I should send my matter to tb-petitions@ohchr.org and urgent action@ohchr.org.

I have now received a reply from tb-petitions@ohchr.org on 24 June 2010 which states:

"We note that you have submitted your complaint to the European Court of Human Rights and wish to draw your attention to article 2, paragraph c, of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities, which provides that the Committee shall consider a communication inadmissible, when the same matter has been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement."

I emailed tb-petitions@ohchr.org back stating that the matter in front of The European Court of Human Rights only concerns breaches of The European Convention on Human Rights, and that an appeal to the United Nations would only concern the Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities. Two different conventions, two different matters.

Can you please sort this out with tb-petitions@ohchr.org as I do not believe that the rights of persons with disabilities in Europe will be protected if the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights is using The European Court of Human Rights to deny persons with disabilities a right to submit a case against breaches of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities. Most of Europe have signed and ratified The European Convention on Human Rights, and most of Europe have signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with disabilities. If a country has signed and ratified both, then broken both, that country should be held accountable for a breach of both, not one, just like a criminal should be held accountable for two crimes, not one.

I hope this explains my position, and I would be grateful if you could sort this out with tb-petitions@ohchr.org, so that the rights and freedoms of some 245 million Diabetics worldwide can be protected.

Yours,

Mr K McAlpine

Later that same day I received the following email from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Mr K McAlpine

Our Ref: FOI295

25th June 2010

Subject: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your email dated and received on 26th February 2010.

Request

Your questions which have been treated as a request under the Freedom of Information Act are:

1. Are you able to help anyone with any discrimination under Section 28 of the Equality Act?

2. If so, can you please list cases where you have helped.

Answer

In response to your first question, yes, the Commission can use Section 28 of the Equality Act to help people who believe they have been discriminated against.

We can confirm, as stated in our email to you dated 30th April 2010, that the Commission has supported 121 cases under Section 28 of the Equality Act, since it opened in October 2007. However, we are not able to supply you with a list of these cases at present. This is because the exemption detailed in Section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act (which is concerned with confidentiality) may apply to the disclosure of this information and we need to make further enquiries within the Commission and to consult with third parties to confirm whether or not the information you have requested can be disclosed without breaching any obligations of confidentiality. We regret that this is resulting in further delay in supplying a full response to your FOIA request.

By 6th July 2010 , we will disclose information we can disclose in relation to the cases, without being in breach of any obligations of confidentiality and if applicable we will explain why section 41 applies to any matters where we have decided to withhold information.

We can however, confirm that we have been able to conclude that section 41 of the FOIA applies to two of the cases and our reasons for this are set out below. The same reasons may apply to the other matters referred to above, but as indicated above, we need to conclude enquiries and consultation before we can conclude whether or not this is the case.

Section 41 states that information will be exempt from disclosure if it was obtained from another person or organisation and disclosure would result in a breach of confidence over which a person could take legal action.

There are express written conditions associated with the above mentioned two matters, that require the parties involved with the cases, to maintain confidentiality and this in turns places upon the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) an obligation to maintain confidentiality. Unauthorised disclosure of the information by EHRC would be to the detriment of the party / parties who provided the information and who were involved with the matters. The EHRC has not obtained consent to disclose the information and therefore does not have authority to disclose the information. In the circumstances, the EHRC has concluded that disclosing the information would lead to an actionable breach of confidence.

Section 41 is an absolute exemption, which means that no public interest test needs to be applied to information caught by this exemption, in order to justify disclosure or non-disclosure. However there is a public interest test, arising from the case law applicable to cases concerned with the issue of confidence. We have therefore considered whether there is any overriding public interest which would warrant disclosure of the information you have requested in respect of these two matters which are being treated as confidential.

We have concluded that there is no such overriding public interest. By withholding the information, the EHRC is not concealing any wrong doing or unlawful actions, so there is no overwhelming public interest in favour of transparency or in favour of preventing unlawful actions, which warrants disclosure. The overriding public interest is in favour of maintaining confidence, because of the potential detriment that other parties may suffer as a consequence of disclosure and because of the adverse implications this would have for EHRC's reputation and its effectiveness in discharging functions under section 28 of the Equality Act 2006. If the EHRC discloses the information it has withheld, this could undermine public confidence in the EHRC and members of the public could be discouraged from approaching EHRC for assistance under section 28 of the Equality Act, thereby undermining the potential benefits that section 28 offers for the public.

If you are unhappy with our response and wish to request an internal review please write to the Corporate Communications Centre at the address below.

During the internal review the handling of your information request will be reassessed afresh.

If following the review you are still not content with our response you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) at:

The Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF.

Generally the ICO cannot provide a decision until you have exhausted the internal review process within the Equality and Human Rights Commission

If the Commission can be of any further assistance please contact us on the details below.

Yours sincerely,

Philippa Bullen

Corporate Communications Officer

On 25 June 2010 I sent the following email to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for disclosing that you have helped 121 cases in three years.

Perhaps my use of 'help' was the wrong term to use, what I was looking for was how many cases under Section 28 of the Equality Act you have taken to Court?

If I receive this information you can then close this information request.

Thanks,

Three days later I sent the following email to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

As I wish to make representation in writing, please find attached a two page document for consideration by the Judges at the hearing:

Thursday 1st July

Starred Single Bill

At 10.00am

XA165/08 Appeal under Section 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 by Kenneth McAlpine against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

Party - McGrigors Solicitors LLP

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine (Appellant)

Later that day I received the following email reply from the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine,

Has these representations in writing been intimated to McGrigors Solicitors ??

Many thanks

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

No.

I have not received any likewise correspondence from McGrigors, so I am extremely reluctant to give them my representations when they have not given me theirs. I have outlined this in a sentence in my representations that I have not received any correspondence regarding what they are claiming, how much, and for what reason.

Mr K McAlpine (Appellant)

I quickly received another email reply from the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine,

Unless you intimate this to McGrigors then I cannot lodge it through the process. A party lodging a step of process shall give written Intimation to every other party and send a copy of the step of process to every such party (Rule of Court 4.6).

If you can confirm that this has or will be done I will be able to lodge it in the process but not before.

Could you please confirm your position.

Many thanks

I then sent an email to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the law firm McGrigors with the document "Opposition to expenses motion" attached.

I then forwarded this email to the Court of Session, and simply stated:

Dear Sir,

Intimation to Respondent.

Mr K McAlpine (Appellant)

On 29 June 2010 I sent another email to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

I trust that this document has now been lodged in process, and is in front of the Judges.

Mr K McAlpine (Appellant)

It was now 1 July 2010, the day of the costs hearing at the Court of Session, a hearing that neither me or anyone I know attended.

I have shown my document "Opposition to expenses motion", which the judge, Employment Appeal Tribunal and the law firm McGrigors would have had at this hearing:

IN THE COURT OF SESSION

B E T W E E N:

KENNETH ROBERT MCALPINE

-v-

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

OPPOSITION IN WRITING TO MOTION FOR EXPENSES BY ORACLE CORPORATION UK LTD

Your Reference: XA165/08

This case, XA165/08, concerned an appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

At this point the Appellant will again point out what a travesty of natural justice and right to a fair hearing the judgment of the Court of Session was in case reference XA165/08. For the Court of Session to assume that all 245 million Diabetics worldwide are going to be off sick a lot in the future, and that this is not less favourable treatment of Diabetics, is, quite simply, a disgrace.

Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine, in opposition to the motion for expenses made by McGrigors LLP on behalf of Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, requests answers in writing to the following questions in the written judgment of this expenses hearing:

In the previous hearings regarding this case, XA165/08, was this an appeal against a judgment/decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal?

If this was an appeal against a judgment/decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal what Rule of Court did the Inner House of the Court of Session follow, please specify the exact rule (ie: Rule 41, etc)?

What Rule of Court did the Inner House of the Court of Session rely on that allowed Oracle Corporation UK Ltd to be represented by Advocate Fairley during the appeal hearings against a judgment/decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, please specify the exact rule and/or sub rule (ie: Rule 41.3, etc)?

What Rule of Court does the Inner House of the Court of Session now rely on that allows McGrigors LLP to claim expenses on behalf of Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, please specify the exact rule and/or sub rule (ie: Rule 41.3, etc)?

To aid the Court and any future appeals to higher Courts, and the requirement of parties (including legal representatives) not to mislead Courts, can the Respondent confirm that Oracle Corporation UK Ltd made 121 employees in the United Kingdom redundant in a Reduction In Force (RIF) list in 2006, and if not, exactly how many employees in the United Kingdom, of Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, were made redundant in 2006?

Oracle Corporation UK Ltd made a conscious decision to be represented, rightly or wrongly, at three hearings against an appeal by the Appellant against a judgment/decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. As such, the Appellant cannot be liable for any expenses incurred by Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, as this case was solely the Appellant against the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, rightly or wrongly, chose to be represented.

As of 28 June 2010, the Appellant has not received any correspondence from the Respondent outlining what expenses are claimed, and what amounts are claimed.

A full written judgment on this expenses hearing is requested, as this will be appealed to a higher Court.

The next morning I sent the following email to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

I have not received as reply to my last email.

Can you confirm that the Document attached in my email of 28 June 2010 at 16:55 was lodged in front of the Judges for the expenses hearing held yesterday.

Also, as I made representation in writing, how do I know whether another hearing has been arranged?

Mr K McAlpine

Later that morning I received the following email reply from the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine,

I can confirm that the attached document was passed to the Judges for consideration. The Bench duly considered your submissions along with hearing oral submissions by Counsel from the other side and have made their decision based on those submissions.

A written judgement will be issued shortly.

I can conform that there will be no further hearing arranged.

Many thanks

I then received another email from the Court of session:

Mr McAlpine,

Interlocutor of the 1 July attached, a further written judgement will be issued in du course.

Many thanks

Attached document read:

XA165/08

McAlpine, Kenneth (FE) -v- EAT

Party Litigant: McGrigors LLP

Edinburgh 01 July 2010

The Lords having heard Counsel for the Respondent on the opposed motion of the Respondent, and having fully considered the written reasons of opposition by the Party Applicant; he having stated that he would not be present today; Find the Applicant liable to the Respondent in the expenses occasioned by the Application for Leave to Appeal; Remit the account thereof when lodged ,to the Auditor of Court to tax

Edinburgh 01 July 2010

The Lords Decern against the Party Applicant for payment to the Respondent in the expenses for which he has been found liable by interlocutor of even date , as the same shall be taxed by the Auditor of Court

Four days later I received the following email from the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Mr K McAlpine

Our Ref: FOI295

6th July 2010

Subject: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your email dated 25th June 2010 in which you clarified your request. Your email was received on Monday 28th June 2010.

Clarified Request

How many cases under Section 28 of the Equality Act have you taken to Court?

Response

The Commission has offered support in 121 cases under Section 28 Equality Act.

Of these cases, 17 have been heard at court / tribunal(#). A further, 54 are currently listed for hearing at court / tribunal.

(#)In this response 'court / tribunal' includes:

* County Court

* Sheriff Court

* Court of Appeal

* High Court (Judicial Review)

* Employment Tribunal

* Employment Appeal Tribunal

* Security Vetting Appeals Panel

The remaining cases were settled (32) or support was withdrawn / declined (18).

I trust that this response fully answers your request.

If you are unhappy with our response and wish to request an internal review please write to the Corporate Communications Centre at the address below.

During the internal review the handling of your information request will be reassessed afresh.

If following the review you are still not content with our response you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) at:

The Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF.

Generally the ICO cannot provide a decision until you have exhausted the internal review process within the Equality and Human Rights Commission

If the Commission can be of any further assistance please contact us on the details below.

Yours sincerely,

Philippa Bullen

Corporate Communications Officer

On 20 July 2010 I sent the following email to the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been involved in a case in the Court of Session where Mr Douglas Fairley was the Advocate, and I am looking for the following information:

On what date did Mr Douglas Fairley become a part-time Judge of the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal?

On what date did Mr Douglas Fairley become a full-time Judge of the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal?

If you cannot provide this information, who do I write to, to get this information?

Thanks,

I immediately received an automated email reply from the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal stating that they had received this email.

The next day I sent the following email to the Enable branch of the United Nations:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent the email listed below to you around a month ago, but have not received a reply.

Is someone dealing with this, and if so, when can I expect a reply?

Mr K McAlpine

Two days later I received the following email reply from Enable:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email. I will forward your request to the appropriate person, who will reply to you.

Sincerely,

Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Later that day I sent an email to the UK Supreme Court:

Dear Sir/Madam,

On 12 February 2010 I wrote to you regarding an appeal to The Supreme Court from a decision issued by The Court of Session. In your reply on 12 February 2010 you stated that The Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal (email listed below 12 February 2010 14:52).

The Court of Session has now awarded expenses against me, and I plan to appeal this expenses decision.

As The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear the original appeal, and the expenses decision is based solely on the original appeal, I trust that The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear this expenses appeal, is that correct?

Yours Sincerely,

I quickly received the following email reply from the UK Supreme Court:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I do apologise for forwarding the last message to you.

The email was indeed referred to the Registrar who has asked me to inform you that this Court still has no jurisdiction.

Yours sincerely

Robert Greenberg

Registry

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

At the end of July 2010 I received the following letter from the Financial Ombudsman Service:

Financial Ombudsman Service

our ref 7621674/JML/W304

Financial Ombudsman Service

South Quay Plaza

183 Marsh Wall

London

E14 9SR

27 July 2010

Dear Mr McAlpine

Your complaint about Society of Lloyd's

Final Decision

I am writing to tell you that we have now completed our review of your complaint. I enclose the ombudsman's decision, a copy of which has also been sent to Society of Lloyds.

I am sorry to say that the ombudsman has not upheld your complaint. Under the rules of our scheme, I now have to:

* ask you to let me know, in writing, before 27 August 2010, if the decision is accepted or rejected; and

* explain that if the decision is accepted, then it will become binding on you and on Society of Lloyds.

Since the ombudsman has not upheld the complaint, I understand that you may not wish to accept the decision. In that case, you will not be bound by it.

This completes the investigation of your complaint by the Financial Ombudsman Service. Our complaints-handling procedure has now come to an end, so I hope you will understand that we are unable to enter into any further correspondence about this matter.

Yours sincerely

Caroline Gaved

Ombudsman Assistant

FINAL DECISION

complaint by: Mr K R McAlpine

complaint about: Society of Lloyd's

complaint reference: 7621674/JML/W304

date of decision: 27 July 2010

This Final Decision is issued by me, Mark Sceeny, an ombudsman with the Financial Ombudsman Service. It sets out my conclusions on the dispute between Mr McAlpine and certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I am required to ask Mr McAlpine either to accept or reject my conclusions, in writing, before 27 August 2010.

I have considered all the available evidence and arguments from the outset, in order to decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

Summary of complaint

1. This complaint concerns a claim made under Mr McAlpine's legal expenses insurance policy provided by certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London. The claim was administered by Family Plus, the claims-handler acting on underwriters' behalf.

Background to complaint

2. Mr McAlpine notified a claim under his legal expenses cover following his dismissal on the grounds of redundancy. He alleged that he had been unfairly dismissed because of his disability and that his former employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate his disability.

3. Panel solicitors. Miller Samuel, were instructed to assess the claim. Ms Miller of that firm met with Mr McAlpine in February 2007 and reported to Family Plus that there were difficulties in bringing a tribunal claim for disability discrimination as he had not first raised a grievance. She also considered that Mr McAlpine had an unrealistic view of the value of his claim: and that his employers had already made a reasonable offer to settle. She said she had advised him that he could lose his claim 'as it was a matter of evidence between him and the Respondents' but that he had rejected her advice. Her understanding was that he would revert to her after considering the matter further after the meeting; but she had not heard from him and assumed he did not want her continued involvement. She advised that, in any event, the employer's offer was reasonable-and one that she could 'negotiate up'-so to reject it was a breach of the policy terms.

4. Mr McAlpine proceeded to represent himself at the employment tribunal. The hearings took place over several days in July and August 2007 but his claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination were dismissed.

5. In December 2007, Biggart Baillie, solicitors, informed Family Plus that Mr McAlpine had consulted them after receiving the tribunal's judgment and they had lodged a note of appeal on his behalf. They believed that the prospects of success for an appeal were `very good indeed' and sought confirmation that underwriters would fund the costs of the full appeal process, backdated to cover work already undertaken. Their understanding was that Miller Samuel had advised that Mr McAlpine would be unable to bring an employment tribunal claim about his employer's failure to make adjustments to accommodate his disability because he had not brought a grievance. However, Biggart Baillie questioned why a grievance had not then been made. It was also their understanding that, irrespective of the issue of reasonable adjustments, Miller Samuel had failed to assess the prospects of success of the unfair dismissal claim.

6. Biggart Baillie subsequently sought funding to deal with an application for costs made by Mr McAlpine's former employer on the grounds, amongst others, that he had failed to participate in a mediation process and rejected an offer of £28,000. They also reported that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had held that their note of appeal did not disclose any reasonable grounds for appealing but Mr McAlpine had sought a hearing to argue his case for an appeal.

7. Family Plus responded that. unless/until the Employment Appeal Tribunal found grounds of appeal. there could be no reasonable prospects of success. They asked Biggart Baillie to revert to them if Mr McAlpine's application succeeded, and they would then consider extending cover from that date. However. Mr McAlpine wanted cover to be granted retrospectively from February 2007. He maintained that he had had to represent himself against one barrister and four solicitors at the tribunal because he had not accepted the low settlement advised by Miller Samuel: and he wished to be covered for all costs (of appeals and other hearings). as he had been informed by Biggart Baillie that the advice given by Miller Samuel was wrong.

8. Our adjudicator, Johanna Lowe, felt unable to uphold Mr McAlpine's complaint. She was of the view that the underwriters had acted reasonably and were entitled to rely on the advice previously given by Miller Samuel. Mr McAlpine has appealed, reiterating that the advice received from Ms Miller was fundamentally wrong, particularly about the need to bring a grievance first. His understanding was that the statutory grievance procedures did not apply to claims for unfair dismissal.

Findings

9. The policy provides this cover:

We will pay Cost and Expenses to a maximum of £50,000... for any of the following insured incidents. in order to pursue a civil claim directly arising from one or more of the following events or causes... if we deem that there are good prospects of success:

6. Employment Disputes

Disputes arising from a contract of employment entered into by you for your work as an employee.

10. All legal expenses policies of which I am aware contain terms limiting the insurer's liability to fund only court actions which have reasonable prospects of success. The purpose of this type of clause is to protect insurers from having to fund legal proceedings that have little or no merit. If an insurer can satisfy us that it has taken appropriate legal advice which confirms that there is no reasonable chance of success, we will not criticise it for relying on that advice unless it was patently incorrect and should have been identified as such by the insurer.

11. I gather that there was no formal communication in which Mr McAlpine was initially notified of the lack of prospects or his failure to accept a reasonable offer. It seems that the case was simply closed further to Ms Miller's aforesaid letter of February 2007 to Family Plus (in which she stated that Mr McAlpine had rejected her advice at the meeting and seemed to have more confidence in pursuing the matter himself'). In my judgment, it would have been good practice for Family Plus to have notified Mr McAlpine of their understanding of the position and the nature of the legal advice received. There is, however. no indication that Mr McAlpine attempted to challenge the advice given by Miler Samuel at the time or made any contact with Family Plus until he had unsuccessfully brought his claims to the employment tribunal.

12. I am not convinced that Family Plus acted unreasonably in declining to consider any further funding until and unless Mr McAlpine succeeded in establishing he had grounds of appeal. They were aware not only of Miller Samuel's advice, but also that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had rejected Biggart Baillie's application for permission to appeal.

13. Although it is not my role to assess the merits of the underlying legal claim, Ms Miller's advice that there were difficulties with this claim appears to have been vindicated by the judgment of the employment tribunal. Her letter to Family Plus of February 2007 said that she had discussed her views on prospects with Mr McAlpine and explained that he could lose his claim and that the offer made was reasonable. It is not entirely clear what aspect of the discrimination claim she was referring to when stating that he would first need to have brought a grievance, but it seems that the tribunal found little or no merit in any of Mr McAlpine's claims of discrimination. The judgment of the employment tribunal states that the claim relating to failure to accommodate Mr McAlpine's disability was struck out at a pre-hearing review in March 2007 (apparently due to a failure to comply with the statutory grievance procedure) but that 'had we required to consider the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments, we would have dismissed it.'

14. Mr McAlpine alleges that he finds himself in his current situation entirely due to 'wrong' advice given by Miller Samuel. He has referred to the comments made by Biggart Baillie that he probably would have won his case had he received legal representation before the employment tribunal. However. we now have copies of the judgment of the employment tribunal. the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (further to the hearing of Mr McAlpine's application for permission to appeal), and the decision of the Court of Session refusing permission to appeal. I understand that Mr McAlpine has also sought to take this matter to the European Court of Justice. Unfortunately, despite Biggart Baillie's optimistic opinion about his appeal prospects, the judicial findings to date have been resolutely dismissive of his claims and his attempts to overturn the judgment of the employment tribunal. In all the circumstances, I am not persuaded that the underwriters are contractually obliged to meet any costs in connection with Mr McAlpine's claims in the employment tribunal or appeal against its findings.

Decision

15. For the reasons set out above, I am unable to uphold this complaint despite my natural sympathy for Mr McAlpine. I therefore make no award against the underwriters.

Mark Sceeny

Ombudsman

Chapter 9

At the back of the Financial Ombudsman Service decision was the following sheet of paper which I filled out as follows:

Final Decision acceptance/rejection form

To:

Johanna Lowe

Financial Ombudsman Service

South Quay Plaza

183 March Wall

London

E14 9SR

From / On behalf of:

Mr McAlpine

Complaint about Society of Lloyd's

7621674/JML/W304

I refer to your Final Decision dated 27 July 2010 on my complaint about Society of Lloyds. I write to:

* reject the decision

I also sent the following email to the Financial Ombudsman Service:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to inform you that I reject the final decision, dated 27 July 2010, of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

I have also sent the Final Decision acceptance/rejection form to you by post today.

I know that I do not have to give any reason why I reject the final decision, but, as the decision is so bias towards Lloyds, I feel that I must.

I noticed that your Ombudsman is a Barrister, so it does not surprise me that he has defended the decision of the Tribunals and Courts. However, this 'Judgment' does not explain why I was given the wrong legal advice to accept £28,000 because I had not raised a grievance. You do not raise a grievance when your employer dismisses you, your employer must follow the statutory dismissal procedure. The main disability discrimination claim (NOT the reasonable adjustments claim) was not thrown out because I did not raise a grievance, in fact it went ahead for 3.5 days, and the subsequent appeals at the Employment Appeals Tribunal and Court of Session did not raise the need to have lodged a grievance.

You will also be aware that discrimination claims have no monetary ceiling, and you can claim loss of salary, expenses and pension among others. I was on an annual salary and benefits of £45,000, and if Miller Samuel had valued the claim correctly, they would have valued it a lot more than £28,000. The Respondents legal team valued the claim at a lot more, and spent £117,000 fighting it at the Employment Tribunal.

These disgraceful decisions are still being appealed, and when they are overturned, I understand that I can take the Financial Ombudsman Service and Lloyds to Court.

It was now 4 August 2010 when I received the following letter from the Financial Ombudsman Service:

Financial Ombudsman Service

our ref 7621674/JML/W304

Financial Ombudsman Service

South Quay Plaza

183 Marsh Wall

London

E14 9SR

2 August 2010

Dear Mr McAlpine

Your complaint about Society of Lloyd's

Thank you for your e-mail of 30 July 2010 addressed to Ms Gaved. Because you have rejected our decision, neither you nor Society of Lloyds is bound by it.

As explained previously, our complaints-handling procedure has now come to an end, so I hope you will understand that we are unable to enter into any further correspondence about this matter. I confirm that we have now closed our file on this case.

Yours sincerely

Linda Mathison

Adjudicator

Six days later I sent the following email to the International Diabetes Federation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent you another email around eight weeks ago regarding discrimination against Diabetics, but have not received a reply.

Can you let me know when I can expect a reply?

Thanks,

Around two weeks went by before I sent the following email to my parents with information I had found on the internet:

FACULTY OF ADVOCATES EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP CONFERENCE 2010

Date: Friday 18 June 2010

Speakers / events include:

Mr Justice Underhill

President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The Honourable Lady Smith

Honorary President of the Faculty of Advocates Employment Law Group

Douglas Fairley

Employment Judge

Douglas Fairley called to the Bar in 1999 after having practised as a solicitor in both Glasgow and Edinburgh for a number of years. He was appointed a fee paid Employment Judge in 2009, and in April 2010 he commenced full-time work as an Employment Judge based in Edinburgh.

The next day I sent the following email to the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have not received any reply to my last email sent over one month ago which is listed below.

If you are not going to provide a reply, I will contact both the Employment Tribunals main office and the Freedom of Information Commissioner.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I received an automated email reply stating that the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal had received my email.

Later that day I sent the following email to the Law Society of Scotland, the professional body for Scottish lawyers:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can a practising Advocate represent a client in an employment appeal, whilst also holding the role of a part-time judge in the Employment Tribunals?

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Shortly after sending that email, I received the following email from the Employment Tribunals:

Dear Sir

Your recent request for information has been passed to me and I apologise for the delay in replying. I can confirm that Douglas Fairley was appointed as a feepaid Employment Judge with effect from 1 October 2009 and was appointed as a salaried Employment Judge with effect from 29 March 2010.

Yours faithfully

Susan Walker

Vice President, Employment Tribunals (Scotland)

The final email I sent that day was the following reply to Susan Walker:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Earlier this year I was the Applicant in an employment appeal to the Court of Session in Edinburgh (27 January 2010). Douglas Fairley represented the Respondent in fighting this employment appeal, whilst acting as a fee paid Employment Judge of the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal.

Is the Employment Tribunal comfortable with this?

Mr K McAlpine

The last email I received that day was the following email reply from Susan Walker:

Dear Sir

There is no bar on a feepaid Employment Judge appearing in the Court of Session in an employment case provided of course he/she has had no judicial involvement in the particular case at the employment tribunal.

Yours faithfully

Susan Walker

Vice President, Employment Tribunals (Scotland)

The next day I sent the following email reply to Susan Walker:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your prompt reply acting in an official capacity as the Vice President of the Employment Tribunals (Scotland), and confirming that there is no problem in a temporary (fee-paid) Employment Judge representing a party in an employment tribunal appeal to higher (providing the temporary (fee-paid) Employment Judge had no prior judicial involvement in the case).

I disagree for various reasons, and will raise this as an appeal point in any future appeals to higher Courts, and will lodge your email in evidence as the official position of the Employment Tribunals (Scotland).

Mr K McAlpine

On 27 August 2010 I sent myself the following email:

29-May-2009: Court of Session Hearing (10 mins).

26-Jun-2009: Court of Session Hearing (1/2 day).

01-Oct-2009: Douglas Fairley becomes part-time Employment Judge.

27-Jan-2010: Court of Session Hearing (1 day).

12-Feb-2010: Court of Session Judgment.

29-Mar-2010: Douglas Fairley becomes full-time Employment Judge.

FEE-PAID EMPLOYMENT JUDGE

OUTLINE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AND TERMS OF APPOINTMENT

Possibly also affects impartiality of judge representing one party (Respondent) over another (Appellant).

13. Fee-paid judicial office holders must not become involved in the preparation or representation of Employment Tribunal cases in any part of the region to which they have been assigned to sit. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice regard it as the judicial office holder's personal responsibility (and not that of staff of the tribunal or the hearing centre) to avoid, as far as possible, any potential conflict of interest which might require him or her to stand down from a particular case.

14. Judicial office holders are expected to refrain from any activity, political or otherwise, which would conflict with their judicial office or be seen to compromise their impartiality.

My own comment: A fee-paid Judge of the Employment Tribunal has direct access to the inside workings of the Employment Tribunal system (including materials, notes, computer records, etc) that no other legal representative may have who could represent the Respondent, thereby giving the Respondent an unfair advantage.

My own comment: A fee-paid Judge of the Employment Tribunal who represents a Respondent, gives the Respondent an immediate advantage throughout representation, as a member of the institutional establishment, the Employment Tribunal, who the Court are being asked to rule against, is representing the Respondent.

and Attorney General of Quebec v Lippé, which was concerned with the question whether, in the case of part-time municipal court judges who were allowed to practise law, there was a lack of 'institutional impartiality'.

It was now 7 September 2010 when I sent the following email to the International Diabetes Federation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent my last email to you around four weeks ago regarding discrimination against Diabetics, but have not received a reply to my original email dated 5 March 2010, which is listed at the bottom of this email.

Can you let me know when I can expect a reply?

Thanks,

Three days later I sent the following email to the lawyer Maureen Hall working for the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been informed by a neighbour that two men in suits, one with a clipboard, were looking for me on Wednesday 8 September 2010. They proceeded to knock on every door in the road, and stopped one of my neighbours at the bottom of the road, asking the neighbour if he knew anything about me and where I worked.

My question to you is this, have you taken steps to have this award enforced through formal action such as sheriff officers?

Mr K McAlpine

Later that morning I received the following email from the lawyer Maureen Hall working for the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

I confirm that a firm of Sheriff Officers was instructed by this office to carry out initial enquiries as part of preliminary procedures before taking steps to enforce the various awards of expenses against you. Once I had received their report the next step is to contact you to ask again for your proposals for settlement before taking any further steps towards enforcement.

As you have now contacted me on this matter, however, I would be grateful if you could now let me have your proposals for settlement of the outstanding award of £3,700 from the Tribunal proceedings, together with the expenses of the Court of Session hearing. I have not yet had our fees drawn up as a formal account, but our outlays for counsel's fees are £2,350 plus VAT.

If you are now willing to let me have your proposals for paying these expenses, it may not be necessary for me to instruct any further enforcement action against you. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Maureen Hall

I immediately sent the following email reply to the lawyer Maureen Hall working for the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for confirming that you have instructed Sheriff Officers.

As these Sheriff Officers have been at my doorstep and many other doorsteps in the street, as well as stopping my neighbours to enquire about me and where I work, this has went way beyond "initial enquiries".

I am also aware that the Court of Session referred the award of expenses to the Auditor of Taxation, who must produce a report of the expenses that the Auditor of Taxation believes to be 'fair'. The Auditor of Taxation has produced no such report, and has not even contacted me at all, so you have no right whatsoever to be 'enforcing' an award of expenses which the Auditor of Taxation has not even decided on yet.

You will also be aware that all proceedings are still under appeal.

Mr K McAlpine

Later that afternoon I sent the following email to the Court of Session:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been involved in a case at the Court of Session where costs were awarded against me, but the interlocutor of 1 July 2010 stated "Remit the account thereof when lodged ,to the Auditor of Court to tax"

This case is currently under appeal to a higher Court.

I have now received an email from the Respondent's Solicitor informing me that they have instructed Sheriff Officers to recover the Court of Session costs, even although the Respondent has stated "I have not yet had our fees drawn up as a formal account". In other words the Respondent does not know the final amount, and I have had no correspondence from the Auditor of the Court regarding a final amount.

Before I contact the higher Court regarding this matter, I require an answer from the Court of Session to the following question:

Because no amount of costs have been finalised, either by the Respondent or the Auditor of the Court of Session, and the Respondent has already instructed Sheriff Officers to recover the unknown Court of Session costs, is this illegal, and should I contact the Police?

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I quickly received the following email reply from the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine,

I am not legally qualified, therefore I cannot comment upon the matter.

Gavin McLeod

I then sent the following email to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been involved in a case at the Court of Session where costs were awarded against me, but the interlocutor of 1 July 2010 stated "Remit the account thereof when lodged ,to the Auditor of Court to tax"

This case is currently under appeal to a higher Court.

I have now received an email from the Respondent's Solicitor informing me that they have instructed Sheriff Officers to recover the Court of Session costs, even although the Respondent has stated "I have not yet had our fees drawn up as a formal account". In other words the Respondent does not know the final amount, and I have had no correspondence from the Auditor of the Court regarding a final amount.

As I have a right to peaceful enjoyment of my possessions, my question to you is:

Because no amount of costs have been finalised, either by the Respondent or the Auditor of the Court of Session, and the Respondent has already instructed Sheriff Officers to recover the unknown Court of Session costs, without giving me an opportunity to pay the unknown final amount, is this a fundamental breach of my human rights?

If it is a fundamental breach of my human rights, what can you do to help.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I immediately received an automated email reply stating that the Equality and Human Rights Commission had received this email.

After receiving the lastest email from the Court of Session, I sent the follwing email reply:

Dear Sir,

I am not asking you to comment on the matter, as I stated "I require an answer from the Court of Session", such as the Auditor, or a Judge.

Mr K McAlpine

I quickly received the following email reply from the Court of Session:

Mr McAlpine,

If you wish an answer from the Auditor of the court of Session you should address the question to them.

The Judiciary does to not enter into communication with parties.

Gavin McLeod

I then filled out a website form to complain to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

The following is a copy of the message you sent to Auditor of the Court of Session via AuditorCOS

This is an enquiry e-mail via http://auditorcos.bytebacksupport.myzen.co.uk from: Mr K McAlpine

I have been involved in a case at the Court of Session where costs were awarded against me, but the interlocutor of 1 July 2010 stated "Remit the account thereof when lodged ,to the Auditor of Court to tax"

This case is currently under appeal to a higher Court.

I have now received an email from the Respondent's Solicitor informing me that they have instructed Sheriff Officers to recover the Court of Session costs, even although the Respondent has stated "I have not yet had our fees drawn up as a formal account". In other words the Respondent does not know the final amount, and I have had no correspondence from the Auditor of the Court regarding a final amount.

I have a fundamental human right to peaceful enjoyment of my possessions, my question to you is:

Because no amount of costs have been finalised, either by the Respondent or the Auditor of the Court of Session, and the Respondent's Solicitor has already instructed Sheriff Officers to recover the unknown Court of Session costs, without giving me an opportunity to pay the unknown final amount, what can you do regarding this matter?

Mr K McAlpine

If it is a fundamental breach of my human rights, what can you do to help.

I then received the following email from the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

I confirm that we will be lodging our account for taxation in due course, but as there is already an outstanding and unpaid award of £3,700 against you, it is reasonable to make enquiries as to your ability to pay at this stage. If you have any for payment at this time, I would be willing to consider these.

I have not been notified of any further appeal, and as you know, the court previously advised that your attempt to appeal the costs decision was incompetent. Please advise if you have had any further correspondence with the court in this respect, and provide a copy of any communication.

Yours sincerely

Maureen Hall

Later that afternoon I received an email from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I note your comments below and would advise you to contact the Respondent's Solicitor and ask them why they are instructing Sheriff Officers when you have not yet received their account of expenses. If this doesn't clarify matters then please contact this office again quoting the name of the court action and I will look into the matter further.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

I then sent the email from the Auditor of the Court of Session to the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please refer to the email from the Auditor of the Court of Session below. I trust that you will contact the Sheriff Officers as soon as possible to stop any further action.

As I have already stated, this whole case is under appeal to a higher Court, and not the Court of Session. As it is now outside Scotland, it is now outside your jurisdiction, and your client, Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, are no longer a party to proceedings.

Regarding your instructing Sheriff Officers, you had no right whatsoever to instruct Sheriff Officers to recover an unknown sum of money (£3,700 plus what?), as the Sheriff Officers do not know what amount to recover, and I do not know what amount I owe.

If I am legally bound to pay the £3,700 now, even although this appeal is in a higher Court, then I will pay the £3,700. I trust that you will investigate on your clients behalf whether I am legally bound to pay the £3,700 even although this appeal is in a higher Court.

I have written to the Auditor of the Court of Session, as well as various other bodies, and will make the higher Court aware of this, as I see this as a fundamental breach of my human right to peaceful enjoyment of my possessions.

Mr K McAlpine

Shortly after I received the following email from the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

I note all that you write and would clarify that I have not yet instructed Sheriff Officers to enforce or recover any costs, but to make preliminary enquiries, and I have no reason to believe that they have acted in an unlawful manner in this respect.

I will contact you again once I have further instructions from my clients.

Yours sincerely

Maureen Hall

I immediately sent another email reply back to the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

You stated in your last email:

"I note all that you write and would clarify that I have not yet instructed Sheriff Officers to enforce or recover any costs, but to make preliminary enquiries"

I had Sheriff Officers on my road, knocking on my door, as well as many of my neighbours doors as well as stopping neighbours in my road. There are many children who also live on my road, none of whom have any involvement in this case.

This is a fundamental breach of my privacy, family life and home as well as their privacy, family life and home, a fundamental breach of my human right, and my wife and childrens human right to peaceful enjoyment of our possessions. It is also intimidation, as myself and my wife, as well as my children are now embarrassed to face our neighbours, and my six year old daughter asked me why I was locking the doors.

You also stated "I have no reason to believe that they have acted in an unlawful manner in this respect."

I beg to differ. You have instructed Sheriff Officers to turn up at my door, without knowing the final amount owed, so how can I pay for an amount I do not know?

I will be lodging all these emails as a matter of urgency in the higher Court.

I will give you one more chance to cancel the Sheriff Officers, if you do not cancel the Sheriff Officers immediately, I will also contact the Auditor of the Court of Session, and make enquiries as to the legality at the Police.

Mr K McAlpine

I then sent the last email I had received from the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

In your email "10 September 2010 16:05" you stated:

"and would advise you to contact the Respondent's Solicitor and ask them why they are instructing Sheriff Officers when you have not yet received their account of expenses. If this doesn't clarify matters then please contact this office again quoting the name of the court action and I will look into the matter further."

The Respondent's Solicitor reply is stated below, however the Sheriff Officers were on my street on 8 September 2010, knocking on my door (I was not in) as well as my neighbours door, and stopping my neighbours to enquire about me and where I work. I do not know the final amount I have to pay, and have not received any correspondence from yourself.

The Respondent has not intimated that they will stop the Sheriff Officers.

This is an utter disgrace, and I now request that you look into the matter further.

The Court Action was XA165/08.

Mr K McAlpine

Three days later I sent the following email to the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Even although I don't know if I am required to do this, please find attached details of my latest Etrade account as of 30 June 2010.

As you can see, I have more than enough funds in this one Etrade account to pay all costs if required.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I immediately received the following automated email from the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors:

Thank you for your email. I am out of the office on secondment and will not be able to respond to your email.

If you need a response, please contact Tracey Linn or Avril Orr who will contact another member of the team. Your email has not been forwarded.

Maureen

I then decided to try and contact anyone from the law firm McGrigors, as the threat of Sheriff Officers was still very real:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Even although I don't know if I am required to do this, please find attached details of my latest Etrade account as of 30 June 2010.

As you can see, I have more than enough funds in this one Etrade account to pay all costs if required.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I immediately received the following automated email from another lawyer from the law firm McGrigors:

Thank you for your email. I am out the office returning Wednesday 22 September. Anything requiring an urgent response please contact Avril Orr. Otherwise I will respond to all e-mails when I return.

Thanks

Tracey

I then sent another email to Avril Orr regarding the Etrade account and attachment showing funds.

Later that day I sent the following email to the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have not received any correspondence from you, Maureen Hall, your law firm, McGrigors, or your client, Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, stopping Sheriff Officers from arriving at my family home regarding payment of an, as yet, unknown sum of money.

This threat of Sheriff Officers arriving at my family home is therefore still real, even although this case is still under appeal, and you have not even contacted me regarding your unknown Court of Session expenses before involving Sheriff Officers.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Later the next day I sent the following email to a number of lawyers from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have not received any correspondence from you, Maureen Hall, your law firm, McGrigors, or your client, Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, stopping Sheriff Officers from arriving at my family home regarding payment of an, as yet, unknown sum of money.

This threat of Sheriff Officers arriving at my family home is therefore still real, even although this case is still under appeal, and you have not even contacted me regarding your unknown Court of Session expenses before involving Sheriff Officers.

On 14 September 2010 I received the following email from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I note from the Respondent's Solicitor's e-mail below that they instructed Sheriff Officers to make preliminary enquiries. I can confirm that this office has not yet received any account of expenses for taxation under the court reference provided by you. Now that you have clarification on the position, this office has nothing further to add.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

I then sent the following email reply to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

I am a party litigant in person.

I, as such, do not have any clarification on the position.

Sheriff Officers have been knocking on my door, and asking my neighbours what they know about me, and where I work, so it is not preliminary enquiries.

It is my understanding that the Respondent's Solicitor should have submitted an account of expenses for taxation to you, the Auditor of the Court of Session, is that correct?

It is then my understanding that you should have written to me outlining how much expenses the Respondent's Solicitors were claiming, and if I agreed with the amount, is that correct?

It is also my understanding that the Respondent's Solicitors should not have involved Sheriff Officers at all, until the Respondent's Solicitor expenses had been agreed by all parties, and I had a chance to pay, is that correct?

I look forward to your replies to the above questions.

Mr K McAlpine

Later that day I received the following reply from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I attach a link to Chapter 42 of the rules of the Court of Session which should provide you with an answer to the first two questions. In terms of the employment of Sheriff Officers, this is not something this office is able to advise you on. I should also add that the Auditor is currently out of the office and I am responding on his behalf as his clerk.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

I sent another email to the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors, as I had received nothing concerning Sheriff Officers being cancelled:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have not received any correspondence from you, Maureen Hall, your law firm, McGrigors, or your client, Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, stopping Sheriff Officers from arriving at my family home regarding payment of an, as yet, unknown sum of money.

This threat of Sheriff Officers arriving at my family home is therefore still real, even although this case is still under appeal, and you have not even contacted me regarding your unknown Court of Session expenses before involving Sheriff Officers.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I finally received a reply from the law firm McGrigors just before 5pm:

Dear Mr McAlpine

As Maureen has said in previous correspondence, Sheriff Officers have not been instructed to enforce or recover any costs at this stage. I can confirm that if this firm receives instructions to enforce the awards of costs, there will be further correspondence with you, and an opportunity to make payment, before any enforcement proceedings are commenced.

I trust this clarifies the position.

Yours sincerely

Alan Nicholson

I then sent the following email reply to the lawyer Alan Nicholson from the law firm McGrigors at 5:43pm:

Dear Sir,

I have just received a 'visit' from these Sheriff Officers at 5pm on 14 September 2010, so this has went way beyond as you state, initial enquiries.

This action is currently in a higher court being appealed, so I do not even know if I am required to pay if it is still being appealed. I asked the Sheriff Officer whether I should pay whilst it is under appeal, he could not answer, and asked me to confirm with yourself whether I have to pay now or not, so perhaps you can provide the answer to that question?

Mr K McAlpine

At around 11:29pm that day I sent the following email to the lawyer Alan Nicholson from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir,

To stop this incessant harassment by Sheriff Officers, twice in three and a half working days, who do I make the cheque out to, and for how much, as I would like to send this cheque as soon as possible, even although I am unsure whether I should be paying this now?

Mr K McAlpine

The next morning I sent the following email to the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have not received a reply to my last email yet.

To stop this incessant harassment by Sheriff Officers, twice in three and a half working days, who do I make the cheque out to, and for how much, as I would like to send this cheque as soon as possible, even although I am unsure whether I should be paying this now?

Please provide a name and amount to make the cheque out to as a matter of extreme urgency.

Mr K McAlpine

I then sent the following email to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

I have reviewed Chapter 42 of the rules of the Court of Session, which clearly states that the Respondent must submit to you, the Auditor of the Court of Session, an account of expenses. As you highlighted in a previous email, the Respondent has not submitted an account of expenses to you, but has involved Sheriff Officers regarding payment of this 'missing' account of expenses.

The Respondent's Solicitors have clearly not followed Chapter 42 of the rules of the Court of Session, and your own procedures, of which you are well aware.

I see this as your problem, as the Respondent's Solicitor has not followed your procedures.

I trust that you will take appropriate action, or refer this to the Auditor on his return

Mr K McAlpine

I then received the following email reply from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

In terms of rule of court 42.1.(2)(a), the Respondent's have 4 months to lodge their account of expenses in process after the final interlocutor in which a finding in respect of expenses is made. You state in your first e-mail that the interlocutor here is dated 1st of July, on the assumption that this is the final interlocutor in which a finding of expenses is made, the Respondents have until the 1st of November to comply with this rule.

I trust this now clarifies matters.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

No, this does not clarify matters at all. You are just not getting this.

The Respondent has been awarded a sum of money by the Court of Session. This sum of money is unknown, as the Respondent's Solicitor has not submitted an account of expenses to either the Auditor of the Court of Session or myself, yet the Respondent's Solicitor has put recovery of this unknown sum of expenses into the hands of Sheriff Officers.

It is the fact that the Respondent's Solicitor has put recovery of this unknown sum of expenses into the hands of Sheriff Officers, without submitting these expenses to the Auditor of the Court of Session or myself.

How can I pay a sum of expenses which is unknown, and more to the point, why are Sheriff Officers involved in the recovery of an unknown sum of money, which has not been through your procedures to fix an agreed sum of expenses?

Once again, I see this as your problem, as the Respondent's Solicitor has not followed your procedures.

I trust that you will take appropriate action, or refer this to the Auditor on his return.

I will also be lodging all of these emails in the higher Court.

Mr K McAlpine

On 15 September 2010 I received the following email from the Scottish Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your recent email.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) currently offers a helpline facility for those who feel they have been discriminated against due to their gender, race, age, disability, sexual orientation or religion and belief. The helpline can provide information and guidance on legislation and processes which might apply to an individual's position. We aim to give information and support that will enable people to make informed decisions about their own situation. We can also give general guidance on human rights issues.

Human rights are based on core principles like dignity, fairness, equality, respect and autonomy. They are relevant to your day-to-day life and protect your freedom to control your own life, effectively take part in decisions made by public authorities which impact upon your rights and get fair and equal services from public authorities.

We cannot say if something is or isn't a breach of an individual's human rights, only a court can determine this.

The human rights act has what are known as "absolute rights", "limited rights" and "qualified rights".

"Absolute rights" such as Article 3, the right to protection from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment should never be interfered with.

"Limited rights" such as Article 5, the right to liberty and security are limited under explicit and finite circumstances, set out in the Act itself, which provides exceptions to the general right.

"Qualified rights" such as Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life can be interfered with when it can be shown that the interference is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and there is a legal basis for doing so.

With this in mind, then it could be possible for a court to order its officers to recover costs from an unsuccessful claimant. However as already stated we are not in a position to say whether or not the way you have been treated is fair or not.

There is no one single way of dealing with a potential human rights violation: it depends on the context and on your particular circumstances. As a general rule, it may be helpful to consider using the following steps as a guide to dealing with your problem.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/using-your-human-rights/getting-help-and-advice/

In all cases, there are time limits which mean that you may need actually to take legal action quite quickly not to lose your rights. Time limits can be complicated but can mean you may have to actually 'issue proceedings' in courts in some cases within three months. The below links only give an overview of how the HRA might apply to you, we strongly recommend you consult a reputable human rights adviser or lawyer before proceeding with any legal action.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/the-human-rights-act/

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/being-treated-fairly-and-with-dignity/

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/living-the-life-you-choose/

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/the-human-rights-act/respect-for-your-private-and-family-life/

http://www.dca.gov.uk/peoples-rights/human-rights/pdf/act-studyguide.pdf

http://www.lawcentres.org.uk/directory/location/Scotland/

http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/

Please feel free to contact us if you require any more information or guidance on your situation. You can also call our helpline on 08456045510 if you would like to speak to one of our advisers.

Kind Regards

Mario Medina

EHRC Scotland

Chapter 10

It was now 15 September 2010 when I sent the following email to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can you send me details of how I lodge a complaint against a Solicitor who was not acting for me, but against me?

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Shortly after sending this email I managed to obtain the email address for enquiries to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and sent another email:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can you please send (email preferably) me a complaint form regarding the conduct of a Solicitor who was acting against me in an action.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I then sent the following email to the lawyer Maureen Hall and another two lawyers from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have not received any correspondence from you, Maureen Hall, your law firm, McGrigors, or your client, Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, stopping Sheriff Officers from arriving at my family home regarding payment of an, as yet, unknown sum of money.

This threat of Sheriff Officers arriving at my family home is therefore still real, even although this case is still under appeal, and you have not even contacted me regarding your unknown Court of Session expenses before involving Sheriff Officers.

To stop this incessant harassment by Sheriff Officers, twice in three and a half working days, who do I make the cheque out to, and for how much, as I would like to send this cheque as soon as possible, even although I am unsure whether I should be paying this now?

Please provide a name and amount to make the cheque out to, and who to send this cheque to as a matter of extreme urgency.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I received an automated email reply from one of the lawyers from the law firm McGrigors stating that they were out of the office until 17 September 2010.

I then received an email reply from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission which read:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

The SLCC has received an e-mail which appears to indicate that you have attempt to communicate with us, via e-mail, earlier this afternoon. The content of your e-mails has not been received by the SLCC, only a message advising that you have attempted to send them. The reason for the content not having been received is not clear.

If you would like to submit a complaint about a legal practitioner in Scotland, or have a query regarding an aspect of the complaint process, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Our website - www.scottishlegalcomplaints.com - may contain the answers to any questions you have. Alternatively, you can contact us by phone on 0131 528 5111, by fax on 0131 528 5110 or by post at the address shown below:

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

The Stamp Office

10-14 Waterloo Place

EDINBURGH

EH1 3EG

If you have not attempted to contact the SLCC, or if you have and have received an acknowledgement of your correspondence earlier this afternoon, please disregard this e-mail.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Dishon

Gateway Team

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

The next day I sent the following email to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have never had any problem emailing people and organisations all over the world for approaching 15 years, and have never received an error message such as I received from your organisation. I trust that the error is at your end, but what is more worrying for the people of Scotland is how do they contact you, as most people prefer email in this day and age.

Can you send a complaint form to the following address:

Mr K McAlpine

<address not shown>

I wish to make a complaint against a Solicitor who was acting against me in an action.

Mr K McAlpine

I then received another email reply from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your e-mail. I have attached a complaint form, along with guidance on how to complete it, with this e-mail.

To proceed with your complaint, please complete the form and send it to us by one of the following methods:

By e-mail: enquiries@scottishlegalcomplaints.com

PLEASE NOTE: Due to the difficulty you have previously experienced with contacting the SLCC via this e-mail address, you may wish to "CC" your e-mail to me.

My e-mail address is nick.dishon@scottishlegalcomplaints.com

You will receive an acknowledgement of receipt of your e-mail almost immediately if it is successfully delivered to our "enquiries" address. Any e-mail successfully delivered to my e-mail address will be acknowledged within 3 working days.

By fax: 0131 528 5110

By post: at the address shown below:

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

The Stamp Office

10-14 Waterloo Place

EDINBURGH

EH1 3EG

I hope you find this information helpful. Should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact the SLCC and ask for myself or any member of the Gateway Team.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Dishon

Later that same day I sent another email to the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have not received any correspondence from you, Maureen Hall, your law firm, McGrigors, or your client, Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, stopping Sheriff Officers from arriving at my family home regarding payment of an, as yet, unknown sum of money.

This threat of Sheriff Officers arriving at my family home is therefore still real, even although this case is still under appeal, and you have not even contacted me regarding your unknown Court of Session expenses before involving Sheriff Officers.

To stop this incessant harassment by Sheriff Officers, twice in three and a half working days, who do I make the cheque out to, and for how much, as I would like to send this cheque as soon as possible, even although I am unsure whether I should be paying this now?

Please provide a name and amount to make the cheque out to, and who to send this cheque to as a matter of extreme urgency.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

The next day I sent the following email to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a completed and signed complaint form and one other attachment to this email for the section entitled "Have you complained to the practitioner concerned".

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Attached documents read:

SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Complaint Form

Use this form for complaints about:

* the service provided by a solicitor or advocate; and/or

* the conduct of a solicitor or advocate

Section 1 - About You

Filled in this section with my name, address and contact details.

Section 2 - About your complaint

Who are you complaining about?

Ticked both boxes for a solicitor and a firm of solicitors.

Name of person: Maureen Hall

Name of firm (as needed): McGrigors

What are you complaining about?

An award of expenses was made against me at the Court of Session. The Court of Session referred this award to the Auditor of the Court of Session.

As of 8 September 2010, the Respondent's Solicitor, Maureen Hall, had not contacted me regarding the amount of expenses, and had not lodged an account of expenses to the Auditor of the Court of Session. In other words, no one knew the amount of expenses as of 8 September 2010.

However, Sheriff Officers were instructed by Maureen Hall and McGrigors, and were present on my street, making enquiries of my neighbours on 8 September 2010.

The whole action which expenses were awarded against me was also currently being appealed to a higher Court.

How has this affected you?

THIS IS AN UTTER DISGRACE.

To involve Sheriff Officers at all, for an amount of expenses that the Respondent does not even know, simply beggars belief.

This is nothing short of harassment and persecution. I live in a small street in a small village, which is made up of middle class to upper middle class homes, and for Sheriff Officers to be present on this street, making enquiries of my neighbours concerning me, has been deeply embarrassing for both myself and my family.

What would help to resolve the problem(s)?

What has happened has now happened, and no apology will fix that.

I would like Maureen Hall struck off as a Solicitor, and McGrigors to be fined.

Have you complained to the practitioner concerned?

Yes

Have you had a response?

Yes

What date did you instruct the practitioner or what date did the conduct issue occur?

From 8 September 2010, still ongoing.

I immediately received the usual automated email reply stating that my email had been received by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission who would respond within three days.

I also received the following email reply from Nick Dishon from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

I can confirm we have received your completed complaint form. Your complaint will be allocated to a member of our Gateway Team who will be writing to you shortly.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Dishon

On 17 September 2010 I sent the following email to the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have not received any correspondence from you, Maureen Hall, your law firm, McGrigors, or your client, Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, stopping Sheriff Officers from arriving at my family home regarding payment of an, as yet, unknown sum of money.

This threat of Sheriff Officers arriving at my family home is therefore still real, even although this case is still under appeal, and you have not even contacted me regarding your unknown Court of Session expenses before involving Sheriff Officers.

To stop this incessant harassment by Sheriff Officers, twice in three and a half working days, who do I make the cheque out to, and for how much, as I would like to send this cheque as soon as possible, even although I am unsure whether I should be paying this now?

Please provide a name and amount to make the cheque out to, and who to send this cheque to as a matter of extreme urgency.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

That same day I received the following email from the lawyer Alan Nicholson from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

I refer to your emails and phone call, in which you indicated that you wish to make a payment in respect of the outstanding awards of expenses in favour of my client, Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

My client has asked that you provide a cheque in the sum of £3,700 and made payable to McGrigors LLP. Please send that cheque, marked for my attention, to McGrigors LLP, Princes Exchange, 1 Earl Grey Street, Edinburgh EH3 9AQ. This payment relates to the Employment Tribunal judgment of 11 January 2008. My client reserves its position in relation to the expenses flowing from the Court of Session finding of 1 July 2010, the amount of which will be determined in due course.

Yours sincerely

Later that evening I sent the following email to the lawyer Alan Nicholson from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir,

I have further noted that you have admitted that you still have no idea of your Court of Session expenses. If you have no idea, then I have no idea, and Sheriff Officers have no idea and therefore had no right to be involved. However, despite this, you have still involved Sheriff Officers in the recovery of this unknown amount, without giving me an opportunity to pay this unknown amount, and without submitting this unknown amount to the Auditor of the Court of Session.

I have posted a cheque for the sum of £3,700.00 made payable to McGrigors LLP. This cheque was posted at 6pm on 17 September 2010.

I will be monitoring my cheque account extremely closely to note the date that this cheque is cashed, and will ask my bank for full details of the transaction.

Mr K McAlpine

The next day I sent the following email to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have very recently submitted a complaint form to you, where I was making a complaint against a Solicitor, Maureen Hall, and a law firm McGrigors.

I now wish to add another Solicitor to this complaint whose name is Alan Nicholson.

I have attached an email to this email to support the complaint against Alan Nicholson. As you can see from the email, Alan Nicholson still has no idea of the expenses awarded at the Court of Session, but has involved Sheriff Officers in an unknown sum of expenses.

Like Maureen Hall, I will expect this Solicitor to be barred.

Two days later I sent an email to the lawyer Maureen Hall from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Although you have not notified me in writing that the threat of Sheriff Officers has been stopped by you, I do not plan to email you every day until this threat has stopped.

Can you notify me in writing, via email only, when you have stopped for good this threat of Sheriff Officers turning up in my street and at my door, and I will reply via email that I have received your email.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

That same day I sent two emails to Sheriff Officer companies to try and determine what Sheriff Officer was at my door, and from what company.

The next day I received the following email from one of those Sheriff Officer companies:

Mr. McAlpine no Officer from this office has been at your address.

I also received the following email from another Sheriff Officer company:

Thank you for your email.

From the information you have provided we are unable to locate your details on our system. There are other firms of Sheriff Officers that cover your area and perhaps the Officer was from one of them.

If you have any other information that may be useful please advise and we will check again, i.e. was there anyone in when he called, did he leave any documentation? Are you aware of any legal action that has been taken against you.

Walker Love

Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers

Later that afternoon I decided to email the lawyer Alan Nicholson from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir,

Can you provide contact details of the Sheriff Officers that you have instructed, so that I can check for myself that they have been made aware that I have paid £3,700.00.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your e-mail of 18 September 2010, which we received 21 September 2010.

I note that you wish to complain about both Maureen Hall and Alan Nicholson of McGrigors.

I further note that you wish to correspond via e-mail and, as such, I have attached a copy of our "10-Day Letter, acknowledging receipt of your complaint form and confirming the next steps we will take with regard to your complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Dishon

Attached letter read:

SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

22 September 2010

Our Ref: 201000571

Tel: 0131 528 5111

Email: enquiries@scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk

Dear Mr McAlpine

Ref: Your complaint about Miss Maureen Hall and Mr Alan Nicholson, of McGrigors

I acknowledge receipt of your completed complaint form which we received on 17 September 2010.

As you may be aware, the SLCC registers all complaints concerning solicitors, advocates or the way in which either the Law Society of Scotland or the Faculty of Advocates dealt with a complaint. The SLCC decides whether a complaint is 'eligible' - i.e. whether it can be accepted for investigation and how it should be progressed.

Although the SLCC can investigate most complaints about the service received from a Scottish solicitor or advocate, it cannot investigate complaints relating to business instructed before 1st October 2008. Nor can it become involved in complaints about a solicitor's or advocate's conduct before 1st October 2008. The SLCC refers these complaints to the Law Society of Scotland or Faculty of Advocates to consider.

I note from your complaint form that the issues you wish to complain about occurred after the 1st October 2008. This means the SLCC will consider whether your complaint is eligible under the criteria set out in the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) 2007 Act. The first step is to confirm exactly what your complaint is about. One of our Gateway Team will be in touch with you within the next 10 days to agree a summary of your complaint and to make sure we understand all the issues.

As part of the assessment of the eligibility of your complaint we will check that you have already made the practitioner, or firm, or client relations partner aware of it and that they have been given a reasonable opportunity to respond (usually four weeks). Your complaint will be rejected as premature and we will not be able to proceed further, if you have not already complained to the practitioner, or firm, or client relations partner. I note from the information you have provided that you have satisfied this requirement. Please continue to send us copies of any correspondence which you feel is relevant to your complaint.

If you have any questions about this, or need further information, please contact our Gateway Team on 0131 528 5111. If you do contact us, please quote the reference number at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Nick Dishon

Gateway Team

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

It was now 23 September 2010 when I received the following email from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I have now spoken to the Auditor and he has asked me to explain to you that his role is to tax accounts of expenses if and when they are submitted for taxation and that he can have no involvement in issues arising between receiving and paying parties before then.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your reply.

The Interlocutor pronounced on 1 July 2010 refers the matter of expenses to the Auditor of the Court of Session for taxation. This is a clear transfer of authority and procedure from the Judges of the Court of Session to the Auditor of the Court of Session.

Rule 42 is the Rule of Court to follow.

The Respondent has not submitted an account for taxation to the Auditor of the Court of Session, and has not sent any correspondence to myself as the paying party. Instead they have instructed Sheriff Officers with regards to this unknown, and untaxed sum of expenses. Clearly they have not followed Rule 42 of the Court of Session which is your procedure.

I see this as solely your domain, as would I am sure any impartial observer.

If you continue to deny that it is not your domain, or that you can do nothing about this, it is then open to any Solicitor/Advocate to ignore the interlocutor from the Court of Session, completely ignore Rule 42 of the Court of Session, hence making the role of the Auditor of the Court of Session obsolete.

I have already reported the Solicitors in question to the SLCC.

If you still feel that it is not in your domain, who's domain do you believe the issues to be in?

Mr K McAlpine

Later that day I sent another email to the lawyer Alan Nicholson from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir,

I have not received a reply to my last email which stated:

Can you provide contact details of the Sheriff Officers that you have instructed, so that I can check for myself that they have been made aware that I have paid £3,700.00.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Five days later I sent the following email to Trading Standards:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been involved in an ongoing legal case, and was threatened by email with Sheriff Officers by the Solicitors acting against me. These 'Sheriff Officers' came to my door, and did not show any identification, and did not give me any papers, despite stating that they were 'Sheriff Officers'.

After contacting the Solicitors acting against me, these Solicitors stated that I should make payment to the Solicitors legal firm, rather than the 'Sheriff Officers', so I asked which Sheriff Officers they had instructed, as I wanted to contact the 'Sheriff Officers' to indicate that I had paid the Solicitors legal firm in full.

I also contacted all Sheriff Officers that cover my area, and not one of them has any record of me.

I have had no reply from the Solicitors regarding the 'Sheriff Officers' they allegedly instructed.

I know it is a criminal offence to pretend to be a Sheriff Officer, or pretend to instruct a Sheriff Officer, when you are not a Sheriff Officer.

What can Trading Standards do to stop this?

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I then received the following email reply from Trading Standards:

Dear Mr McAlpine

The alleged behaviour described would suggest that this is a police matter and they should be contacted.

May we have your address for our records, in the event that we can provide more information on this matter.

Trading Standards

On 30 September 2010 I sent Trading Standards my address in an email.

I then received the following email from the lawyer Alan Nicholson from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thanks for your call. I can confirm that I have now received your cheque for £3,700, and in light of that I have instructed the relevant Sheriff Officers to suspend their enquiries. The only outstanding matter is the Court of Session expenses, which as I explained will be determined over the course of the next few weeks. Assuming those expenses are settled in the same manner, there will of course be no need to further involve Sheriff Officers in enforcement of that award.

Regards

Alan

Later that afternoon I sent the following email to Trading Standards:

Dear Sir/Madam,

As an individual, I would be very lucky to get beyond the front desk at the Police station, and nothing would be done.

May I suggest the following:

Can you contact Alan Nicholson (Tel: 0131 777 7074) at McGrigors and ask him to provide you with the name and contact details of the alleged 'Sheriff Officers' that they used. I contacted him today, and he repeatedly refused to give me any name or contact details of the alleged 'Sheriff Officers'.

If Alan Nicholson does not provide you with the name and contact details of the alleged 'Sheriff Officers' that they used, then you can refer the matter to the Police, as the Police may listen better to Trading Standards.

If Alan Nicholson does supply you with the name and contact details of the alleged 'Sheriff Officers' that they used, then you can inform me of the name and contact details of the Sheriff Officers, and that will be the end of the matter.

I see this as a public issue, because if they are pretending to use Sheriff Officers with me, how many other people have also been affected. I also belief that it is a criminal offence to pretend to be a Sheriff Officer, when you are not.

Mr K R McAlpine

Shortly after sending the last email I received the following email reply from Trading Standards:

Dear Mr McAlpine

This is a criminal matter, which only the Police can get involved in and is outwith Trading Standards remit. It is a Police Fraud matter.

We can keep details of the matter only and advise where to go with the complaint, which is the Police in this instance due to the nature of the complaint.

Lesley Devlin

Admin Support Assistant.

Later that evening I sent another email to Trading Standards:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your last email in which you stated that I should contact the Police as this is a Police Fraud matter.

Can you provide me with contact details of who within the Police force I should contact.

Mr K McAlpine

The next morning I received the following email reply from Trading Standards:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Unfortunately we do not hold any details of police officers, if you call your local Police Station they will put you through to the correct department.

Lesley Devlin

I then sent the following email to my local police:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been in contact with the local Trading Standards Office who have asked me to contact my local Police Station.

This involves the following matter:

I have been involved in an ongoing legal case, and was threatened by email with Sheriff Officers by the Solicitors acting against me. These 'Sheriff Officers' came to my door, and did not show any identification, and did not give me any papers or reference number, despite stating that they were 'Sheriff Officers'.

After contacting the Solicitors acting against me, these Solicitors stated that I should make payment to the Solicitors legal firm, rather than the 'Sheriff Officers', so I asked which Sheriff Officers they had instructed, as I wanted to contact the 'Sheriff Officers' to indicate that I had paid the Solicitors legal firm in full the £3,700.00.

I also contacted all Sheriff Officers that cover my area, and not one of them has any record of me.

I have had no reply from the Solicitors regarding the 'Sheriff Officers' they allegedly instructed, and I called the Solicitors yesterday and the Solicitors repeatedly refused to give me the name or contact details of these alleged 'Sheriff Officers'.

I know it is a criminal offence to pretend to be a Sheriff Officer, or pretend to instruct a Sheriff Officer, when you are not a Sheriff Officer.

Can you confirm that you will look into this matter.

Mr K McAlpine

I then received an automated email reply from my local police stating that my email had been received and I would be contacted within the next two days.

On 4 October 2010 I received the following email reply from my local police:

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Mr McAlpine,

It would be illegal to purport to be a Sheriff's officer with a view to obtaining debts. This could either be within Trading Standards or the police remit.

The fact that they did not volunteer documentary identification does not infer they were bogus. A reasonable person would be expected to present documentary evidence but equally a reasonable person would be expected to ask for that information before parting with money or allowing that person into their house.

It seems that you had/have a civil dispute and it would not be illegal to make attempts to recover debts whether with a Sheriff's decree or not so long as it was authorised agents or by the individuals themselves.

Given the circumstances you present there is reasonable cause to believe that the debt collection agents were lawful and it is just a matter of confirming the debt collection was instructed. There is no need to identify any individuals or the company of sheriffs officers.

Should the solicitors deny that they instructed debt collection then I will arrange for the police to investigate the circumstances. At this stage I do not regard the circumstances merit police investigation.

Regards

Martin Porter Sgt U12

I immediately sent the following email reply to my local police:

Dear Sir,

Firstly, I have attached an email "RE:YOU v ORACLE LTD". In this email it clearly states that the legal firm, McGrigors, have instructed a firm of Sheriff Officers to turn up at my door.

When these 'Sheriff Officers' turned up at my door, they stated that they were 'Sheriff Officers', but did not show any identification, nor did they give me any paperwork or reference number. They did not enter my house, and I did not part with any money at the door.

However, when I contacted the Sheriff Officers firm that they purported to be with, Stirling Park, this firm explained that it most definitely was not a Sheriff Officer from Stirling Park, as they would have produced identification, provided me with a reference number, and left paperwork with me.

There are two things which should raise concern:

1: What concerns me most is whether these people were actually Sheriff Officers. I was told by Stirling Park that the only Sheriff Officers that deal with my area are Stirling Park, Scott&Co and Walker Love, and I have contacted each one of them, and not one has any record of me.

2: I had to pay the money to the law firm, see attached email "RE:Sheriff Officers", rather than to the alleged 'Sheriff Officers'. As I understand it, Sheriff Officers are employed to recover debt, so you pay the money to the Sheriff Officers.

I trust that with this detail you will now look into the matter.

Mr K McAlpine

I then sent another email to Trading Standards:

Dear Sir/Madam,

It looks like the Police are not going to do anything about these alleged Sheriff Officers.

What do you advise now?

Mr K McAlpine

I then received the following email reply from my local police:

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Mr McAlpine,

The correspondence you have attached would suggest that the recovery of the debt was a lawful act instructed by registered solicitors.

Solicitors have their own formal guidelines and overseeing authority.

I do not share your opinion that this is a police matter and do not intend to instruct police officers to look into it.

Regards

I then sent another email to Trading Standards:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please refer to the extract of the webpage below:

"Your legal rights: Dealing with Bailiffs and Debt Collectors

Information for UK residents with Debt Problems who may have to deal with bailiffs.

What's the different between Debt Collectors & Baliffs.

All a debt collector can do is ask you to pay. They have no legal authority. If they are behaving in a threatening manor, contact the police. If a debt collector is pretending or giving the impression of being an appointed baliff, contact your councils trading standards department.

Baliffs are only involved if you can't come to an arrangement to repay your creditors after your case has been to court. Baliffs usually work by threatening to take your possessions to persuade you to pay what you owe, or taking and selling things you own to repay your debt."

Taken from http://www.abacusfinance.co.uk/How-to-deal-with-bailiffs.htm

I would now like Trading Standards to deal with my complaint, and it should take no more than two phonecalls.

First, phone Alan Nicholson and ask him to supply you with the name of the Sheriff Officers firm that he allegedly sent to Mr Kenneth McAlpine's house.

Second, phone Sheriff Officers firm and ask them if they have any record of a Mr Kenneth McAlpine.

If the answer to either of these phonecalls is 'No' then Trading Standards can either look into this further, or refer the matter to the Police.

Mr K McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from Trading Standards:

Dear McAlpine

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please provide your landline telephone number and a member of staff will telephone you.

Yours sincerely,

Lesley Hunter

I immediately sent another email to Trading Standards with my telephone number.

Later that morning I sent another email to the International Diabetes Federation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent my last email to you around four weeks ago regarding discrimination against Diabetics, but have not received a reply to my original email dated 5 March 2010, which is listed at the bottom of this email.

Can you let me know when I can expect a reply?

Thanks,

I then received an email reply from Trading Standards that read:

Mr McAlpine

I have reviewed the detail of your emails.... please provide a telephone number so that we can discuss the issues raised (preferably a land line number) or call me on the number below.

Regards

Susan Williams,Senior Advisory Officer

Trading Standards

I then sent the following email to Trading Standards:

Sent my land line number and availability over the next couple of weeks.

Later that afternoon I sent the following email to the lawyer Alan Nicholson from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir,

Please refer to and reply to attached document "Expenses Recovery".

I have also sent you a copy of this document by post.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Attached letter read:

05 October 2010

Mr Alan Nicholson

McGrigors

Princes Exchange

1 Earl Grey Street

Edinburgh

EH3 9AQ

Dear Mr Nicholson,

On 21 September 2010 and again on 23 September 2010 I emailed you regarding providing contact details of the Sheriff Officers that you instructed regarding myself, and received no reply regarding the contact details of the Sheriff Officers. I also phoned you on 30 September 2010, and again repeatedly asked you to provide contact details of the Sheriff Officers that you instructed, and you refused to provide these details during the phone call, and did not provide these details in the follow-up email on the same date.

Trading Standards have instructed me to write to you to obtain the name of either the Debt Collection Agency or Sheriff Officer's firm that you instructed to turn up at Mr Kenneth R McAlpine's house, <address not shown>, on both the 8 September 2010 and 14 September 2010.

Can you provide the name of either the Debt Collection Agency or Sheriff Officer's firm that you instructed, and clearly state whether it is a Debt Collection Agency or Sheriff Officers?

Yours faithfully,

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

cc: Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, Trading Standards

On 8 October 2010 I received the following email from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your e-mail of 5 October 2010.

I apologise for the delay in acknowledging receipt of this, unfortunately I have been out of the office for several days due to ill health.

I hope to be in a postion to issue you with a summary of your complaint, as detailed in my letter of 22 September 2010, in the next few days.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Dishon

That same day I received the following letter from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

The Stamp Office

10 - 14 Waterloo Place

Edinburgh, EH1 3EG

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

08 October 2010

Our Ref: 201000571

Tel: 0131 528 5111

Email: enquiries@scottishlegalcomplaints.org.uk

Dear Mr McAlpine

Ref: Your complaint about Miss Maureen Hall and Mr Alan Nicholson

I refer to earlier correspondence and contact about your complaint.

Your complaint appears to be about practitioners who did not act for you — we refer to this type of complaint as a third party complaint. The SLCC can investigate complaints of inadequate professional service raised by a third party if they allege that they have been directly affected by the inadequate professional service provided to the practitioners' client. In this case, for example, we will consider whether the service provided by the practitioners to their client was inadequate and if so, as a result, this had a direct and adverse affect on you.

It is important to note that where the SLCC investigates a complaint about service made by a third party, such as yourself, we will not be able to disclose any information to you that is confidential between the practitioner and his/her client as this is covered by the principle of lawyer and client privilege.

I have summarised your complaint in the attached statement. Please confirm the summary is correct by signing, dating and returning one copy. Keep a copy for your own records. If you would find it helpful to speak about it, you are welcome to phone me.

If you think I have missed or misstated something, please either amend the statement and return it or phone me to discuss it further. I would ask you to note that the purpose of the statement is to provide a succinct summary of what you are complaining about to ensure that the SLCC's understanding of your concerns is correct.

Any information you have provided or wish to provide about the consequences of the practitioner's actions or inaction should be included in the summary under the section 'How this has affected you'. Information relating to the background to the complaint will not be included in the summary but will be taken into account when assessing whether the complaint is eligible and in any future investigation.

I am sorry if this seems overly formal, but it is very important that we agree what your complaint is so that I can deal with it in the most appropriate way. I also want to be sure that the statement reflects fully what you see as the main issues and problems.

I would be grateful if you could respond as soon as possible, but in any case within the next 7 days. If you would like more time, let me know as soon as possible so that I do not automatically send a reminder.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Nick Dishon

Case Officer

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Chapter 11

Around 16 October 2010 I received the following letter from the law firm McGrigors:

McGrigors LLP

Princes Exchange

1 Earl Grey Street

Edinburgh EH3 9AQ

Private & Confidential

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

BY RECORDED DELIVERY

14 October 2010

Our Ref PMD/AGN/EFS/OR0013.000001

Dear Sir

Kenneth McAlpine v Oracle Corporation UK Limited

Court of Session Ref No. XA165/08

We refer to the above matter and the Interlocutor dated 1 July 2010, a copy of which is enclosed. We now enclose an Account of Expenses in respect of the payment for expenses awarded to our client.

As you may be aware, Accounts of Expenses for actions in the Court of Session are prepared by reference to the Table of Fees. Guidance on fees is available on the Scottish Courts website.

We will proceed to lodge no later than 1 November 2010 the Account with the Court for taxation. In the meantime, should you have any proposals for settlement of the Account, please contact us directly.

Yours faithfully

Euan Smith

Partner

For McGrigors LLP

First attached document read:

XA165/08

McAlpine, Kenneth (FE) -v- EAT

Party Litigant

McGrigors LLP

Edinburgh 01 July 2010

The Lords having heard Counsel for the Respondent on the opposed motion of the Respondent, and having fully considered the written reasons of opposition by the Party Applicant; he having stated that he would not be present today; Find the Applicant liable to the Respondent in the expenses occasioned by the Application for Leave to Appeal; Remit the account thereof when lodged ,to the Auditor of Court to tax

Edinburgh 01 July 2010

The Lords Decern against the Party Applicant for payment to the Respondent in the expenses for which he has been found liable by interlocutor of even date , as the same shall be taxed by the Auditor of Court

Second attached document read:

Prepared by Ross McGinn, Law Accountants PDR/CR

IN THE COURT OF SESSION

ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES

Incurred by

McGrigors LLP

Agents for the Respondent

In the Application of Kenneth McAlpine

For

Leave to Appeal

Under Section 37 of The Employment Tribunals Act 1996

Against

A Rule 3(10) Direction of the Employment Appeal Tribunal and relative Judgement dated 20 June 2008

2009

Apr 16, Instruction fee, £123.10

Apr 22, Paid Counsel fee for Answers (Voucher 1), £300.00

Apr 22, Paid dues lodging Answers (Ledger A), £175.00

May 29, Fee for Appellant's Motion for Leave to Appeal - opposed - Engaged 1 hour 6 mins, £224.20

May 29, Paid dues lodging Opposition (Ledger B), £45.00

May 29, Paid Counsel fee for attendance at Opposed Motion (Voucher 2), £350.00

Jun 10, Fee for Appendix, £88.15

Jun 26, Fee for attendance at continued Opposed Motion -Engaged 10.30 a.m. - 1.30 p.m, £496.15

Jun 26, Paid Counsel fee for Opposed Motion - restricted (Voucher 3), £350.00

Jun 26, Paid Court dues of Hearing (Ledger C), £285.00

Dec 23, Incidental Procedure fee \- to cover work undertaken in connection with the fixing of a Summar Roll Hearing -restricted, £50.00

Dec 23, Preparation for Hearing, £215.85

2010

Jan 27, Fee for attendance at Hearing - Engaged 10.00 a.m. - 3.15 p.m, £815.85

Jan 27, Paid Counsel fee for Hearing (Voucher 4), £1650.00

Jan 27, Paid Court dues (Ledger D), £665.00

Feb 12, Fee for Advising, £107.65

Jul 1, Fee for Respondent's Motion for expenses - opposed, £107.65

Jul 1,Paid dues of Motion (Ledger E), £45.00

Jul 1, Paid Counsel fee for attendance at Opposed Motion (Voucher 5), £125.00

Oct 8, Fee for Account of Expenses, £232.95

Oct 8, Paid dues lodging Account for Taxation if required, £36.00

Oct 8, Preparation for Taxation to include considering Points of Objection, £232.95

Oct 8, Fee for attendance at Taxation - estimated at 30 mins, £77.70

Oct 8, Paid Fee Fund dues, £0.00

Oct 8, Fee ordering and obtaining Extract Decree, £57.60

£6965.80

There were a number of other sheets outlining various costs for the two Advocates, and the last sheet was:

Unbilled cost report

01 October 2010

Client Name: Oracle Corporation UK Limited

Employment & Pensions unit

Matter No: OR0013.000001

Billing: EFS

Matter Description: Leave to Appeal

Supervising: MFH

Index, Working Timekeeper, Code, Date, Cost Amount

727359, Euan Smith (EFS) - Court Fees - Supplier Scottish Court Service dues lodging answers 22/4/09 SMCK, ECOURT, 12/05/2009, £175.00

735932, Euan Smith (EFS) - Court Fees - Supplier Scottish Court Service dues for opposition 13/5/09 SMCK, ECOURT, 25/06/2009, £45.00

749900, Euan Smith (EFS) - Court Fees - Supplier Scottish Court Service, ECOURT, 01/09/2009, £285.00

800728, Euan Smith (EFS) - Court Fees - Supplier Scottish Court Service Dues fees in court (27/01/10). SM, ECOURT, 15/03/2010, £665.00

800736, Euan Smith (EFS) - Court Fees - Supplier Scottish Court Service Single Bill Lodged - Dated 25/02/10. SM, ECOURT, 15/03/2010, £45.00

802048, Euan Smith (EFS) - Internal Taxi Recharges - a/c for period 21/1-31/1/10 (Central Radio Taxis), ITAXI, 22/03/2010, £3.60

809800, Euan Smith (EFS) - Internal Taxi Recharges - a/c for period 19/2-26/2/10 (Central Radio Taxis), ITAXI, 23/04/2010, £4.60

848594, Euan Smith (EFS) - Payments on behalf of Clients - Supplier Stirling Park To pay Sheriff Officers fee -Invoice No A077122 - £6.56 VAT. AO, ECLIENT, 21/09/2010, £37.50

Total unbilled costs: £1,260.70

On 18 October 2010 I sent the following email to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Apologies for not getting this form to you sooner, but I have been away from home for the last week due to the school October holidays.

Please find attached a signed and dated Summary of complaint form.

I also reserve the right to alter/add to this summary, as this complaint is presently an ongoing situation.

Mr K McAlpine

Attached document read:

Complainer: Mr Kenneth McAlpine

Complaint ref: 201000571

Practitioner: Miss Maureen Hall, Mr Alan Nicholson

Summary of complaint

What you are complaining about

I, Kenneth McAlpine, wish to complain about Miss Maureen Hall and Mr Alan Nicholson, of McGrigors, in relation to their actions in connection with the recovery of an award of expenses made against me. The main point of my complaint is:

1. McGrigors had failed to contact me regarding the amount of the award of expenses made against me, as of 8 September 2010. However, Sheriff Officers were instructed by McGrigors and were present on my street, making enquiries of my neighbours, on 8 September 2010.

How this has affected you

1. I feel the actions of McGrigors amount to harassment and persecution.

2. I live in a small street in a small village, which is made up of middle, to upper-middle class homes. For Sheriff Officers to be present on this street, making enquiries of my neighbours concerning me has been deeply embarrassing for both myself and my family.

What you would like to happen to resolve the problem

1. I would like Maureen Hall and Alan Nicholson to be struck off as solicitors.

2. I would like McGrigors to be fined.

I confirm that this is an accurate and complete summary of my complaint

Later that afternoon I sent the following email to The Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have a legal case which is currently being appealed in European Court.

I also have an active complaint lodged at The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission regarding the actions of the Solicitors involved in the actions listed below.

Up until the 8 September 2010, I had no contact from either Solicitors or Sheriff Officers regarding an unknown and undecided award of expenses against me, made by the Court of Session.

On 8 September 2010, I was informed by a neighbour that Sheriff Officers were looking for me, nothing was posted through my letterbox to inform me of why these Sheriff Officers were looking for me (see attached email "RE: **SPAM....") .

On 14 September 2010, I answered a knock on my door, to find a Sheriff Officer who proceeded to ask various questions regarding my private finances. This Sheriff Officer did not show any identification, did not give a reference number, and did not leave any paperwork at all. When I asked what was the amount of money I was due to pay, he could not tell me, because the legal firm had not drawn up their account of expenses for taxation.

Trading Standards asked me to contact the Solicitors concerned, and ask them to provide the contact details of the Sheriff Officer concerned. The Solicitors stated that it was Grant Moore from the Ayr office of Stirling Park (see attached email "Oracle").

I will be making the European Court aware of all this very shortly, as it is an utter disgrace that a Sheriff Officer comes to your door to inquire about your ability to pay an unknown sum of money.

I will expect nothing less than Grant Moore to be struck off as a Sheriff Officer, and Stirling Park to be heavily fined for breaking my Human Rights and the irretrievable embarrassment caused to me and my family in the neighbourhood.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from The Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Complaint - Grant Moore, Sheriff Officer

I refer to your e-mail lodging a complaint against Grant Moore of Stirling Park.

I have copied your e-mail to the Secretary of the Society for consideration and will write to you again once he has had an opportunity to look into the matters complained of.

Alan Hogg

Administrative Secretary

Later that morning I received the following email from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

I acknowledge receipt of your e-mail and attached summary of complaint, which you have signed. Thank you for sending this to us.

I have attached a copy of our acknowledgement letter which sets out the next stage of the SLCC's complaint process.

With regard to your right to alter/add to the summary, you should be aware that the current summary must reflect all the aspects of your complaint as far as you are presently aware of them. However, if new issues come to light in your dealings with the firm in the future, it may be possible to raise a new complaint at such a time.

If you have any questions about this, or need further information, please contact our Gateway Team on 0131 528 5111. If you do contact us, please quote the reference number at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Dishon

Attached letter read:

SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

19 October 2010

Our ref: 201000571

Dear Mr McAlpine

Complaint about Miss Maureen Hall and Mr Alan Nicholson, of McGrigors LLP MNP

Thank you for your signed statement of complaint which we received on 19 October 2010.

The next stage of our complaints process is to assess whether your complaint is eligible for investigation. There is more information about this on our website, but in summary, we have to decide whether your complaint meets the criteria set out in sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 (the Act) and so can be accepted for investigation.

We may need further information to support your complaint and help us decide if it is eligible. If so, we will contact you and/or the practitioner. For example, we may need to clarify facts or dates or see copies of relevant documents.

Once we are satisfied we have enough information, we will decide whether your complaint can be accepted for investigation. If it can, we will then categorise it. Under section 5 of the Act the SLCC must determine whether a complaint constitutes a conduct or a service complaint or if it contains elements of both. This is necessary because service complaints are investigated by the SLCC and conduct complaints are investigated by either the Law Society of Scotland or the Faculty of Advocates.

We will write to you again to tell you whether or not your complaint is eligible.

If you have any questions about this, or need further information, please contact our Gateway Team on 0131 528 5111 quoting the reference number at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Nick Dishon

On 20 October 2010 I sent the following email to Enable a part of the United Nations:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have yet to receive a reply to your last email on 23 July 2010.

Can you please advise me of the status of this application, and when I can expect to receive a reply?

Thanks,

Four days later I sent the following email to my old University, the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was surfing the web, and came across a tweet written by Emma Boffey.

I would be grateful if you could forward this email on to Emma.

Dear Emma,

I noticed that you tweeted regarding my case "Kenneth McAlpine for leave to appeal a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal [2010] CSIH 66" on 14 September 2010.

You did however miss one extremely important point:

Where in the Court of Session Rules (Rule 41 in particular) does it state that a Respondent can be represented in an appeal against an Employment Appeal Tribunal judgement?

I would appreciate if you could email me back with your answer.

If, as I suspect, you cannot find where a respondent can be represented, then that throws a massively different light on this 'Judgement'.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Two days later I sent the following email to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

I have received the attached letter as well as an "Account of Expenses" (12 pages) from Euan Smith at McGrigors LLP.

I have the following observations and questions:

This "Account of Expenses", as clearly stated in the attached letter, has not been lodged with The Auditor of the Court of Session. This is clearly in breach of the Court of Session Rules of Court 42, which states that an account of expenses must be lodged with the Auditor of the Court, who in turn, will send the account of expenses to paying parties.

My questions are:

Is this a breach of the Court of Session Rules of Court 42?

If so, do I refer this to the SLCC?

If so, what is the Auditor of the Court of Session going to do about this breach of the Court of Session Rules of Court 42?

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Later that evening I received the following email from Enable, part of the United Nations:

Dear McAlpine,

We apologize for the delay.

Regrettably, your request for assistance is beyond the scope of our work. A visit to our website can inform you more about what we do. Essentially, as the Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we work with the Member States and the decisions they render regarding disability issues. We have no authority on the Member States nor can we influence their decisions, especially within their own sovereign territories.

The only suggestion we can render to you is that you may wish to contact the International Disability Federation for their comments and assistance. A large organization representing disability matters may have better influence over government proposals and decisions.

Sincerely,

Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The next morning I sent the following email reply to Enable:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your last email.

I must state that your decision not to help diabetics is a dreadful decision for the following reasons:

For the past four years I have been through the United Kingdom legal system fighting for the rights of diabetics not to be discriminated in employment, because they are deemed to be off-sick a lot in the future. As no-one can predict the future of anything with any certainty, I knew that this was not right, as there are 245 million diabetics worldwide, including royalty, judges, politicians, entertainers as well as the ordinary person, who would strongly disagree with the assumption that they were going to be off-sick a lot in the future.

I have had a look at your website, particularly the "About Us" section which clearly states:

The objectives of the Secretariat at DESA are:

(i) to support the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities in social life and development;

(ii) to advance the rights and protect the dignity of persons with disabilities and;

(iii) to promote equal access to employment, education, information, goods and services.

You are certainly not promoting the rights of persons with disabilities if you are allowing employers to state that a person with a disability is going to be off-sick a lot in the future, and also allowing the legal system of the State, and the State, to agree that a person with a disability is going to be off-sick a lot in the future. All this has happened, as I have exhausted all legal avenues in the United Kingdom.

You also stated in your last email that "we work with the Member States and the decisions they render regarding disability issues". The Member State (United Kingdom) has decided that diabetics will be off-sick a lot in the future.

What are you going to do about this?

You also stated that my request for assistance is beyond the scope of your work. I was not asking for assistance, but enquiring as to how I appeal to the United Nations, regarding the United Kingdom having broken "The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities".

If you are not going to do this, can you inform me how I bring a case in front of the United Nations regarding the United Kingdom having broken "The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities"?

Mr K McAlpine

I also sent another email to Enable:

Dear Sir/Madam,

You stated in your last email to contact "International Disability Federation".

I have searched on google for "International Disability Federation", but nothing exists with this name.

Can you provide a link to the webpage for this federation?

Mr K McAlpine

I then sent the following email to the European Disability Forum and a couple of other related websites:

Dear Sir/Madam,

For four years now, I have been fighting a case of disability discrimination through the courts of the United Kingdom.

My case is simple. I showed an email from my old employer which stated that diabetes would result in future sickness absence. I was sacked from my old employer for the potential to have future sickness absence due to my disability, despite only taking two days sickness absence in the previous two years, the average person takes eight days sickness absence each year.

All the courts in the United Kingdom agreed that this was not discrimination against persons with a disability.

In 2008 I applied to the European Court of Human Rights, and I am currently waiting on whether my application is to go forward to a hearing. I expect to hear before the end of this year.

I have been fighting this case myself.

My question to you is, can you help me in anyway?

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I then sent myself the following email containing information from the European Disability Forum website:

European Disability Forum

Employment

The right to employment is far from being a reality for millions of disabled people willing to work.

Disabled people are two to three times more likely to be unemployed than non-disabled persons. They are more likely to be unemployed for longer periods and face higher risks of losing their jobs than non-disabled people. At present, 78% of disabled people are totally excluded from the workforce. Most of them are obliged to depend on welfare grants to survive and as a result, their income is considerably lower than that of non-disabled people.

For the European Disability Forum, guaranteeing access to employment and occupation is a key issue, as it is crucial aspect for the economic and social inclusion of 50 million disabled people in Europe.

Barriers preventing access to the employment market are most of the times based on misconceptions and judgements on a person's abilities. That is why, the EDF works on simultaneous levels to develop legislation in the field and to promote positive action in the labour market.

Later that afternoon I received the following email reply from Enable, part of the United Nations:

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

I wish to apologize.

I went back to my supervisor and it seems we had a bit of a misunderstanding. He is suggesting you contact the International Diabetes Federation - IDF - here is the link: http://www.idf.org/.

We hope that you can receive the advice or information which your require.

Sincerely,

Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

I immediately sent the following email reply back to Enable:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been trying to contact the "International Diabetes Federation" since 5 March 2010 (see attached email), and have not received a single reply.

Does the "International Diabetes Federation" exist?

Can I suggest that you try and contact them, and if you do manage to contact them, ask them what they are doing to help diabetes discrimination, and refer them to my many emails without reply.

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

I quickly received another email reply from Enable:

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

We truly sympathise with your frustrations and all you are going through.

The main problem here is that there is NO United Nations court of any sort that hears such cases. The UN courts which are publicly mentioned are tribunals of justice in post-conflict situations.

We wish we can help you. This Secretariat is a holding pen for information regarding the Convention and our assistance to the public comes mainly in the form of information such as having this channel for writing to ENABLE to obtain info. We mentioned that what you were requesting is beyond the scope of our work as we have no jurisdiction to make decisions on any disability issue concerning a citizen of any particular country. We cannot influence any country into accepting the Convention nor its Optional Protocol.

Since the UK has signed the Optional Protocol, the information we had sent to you on how to contact UN Human Rights in Geneva, is the basis on how to approach the UN in submitting a complaint against your country and its action which you believe are against your human rights. That is how you can appeal to the United Nations to state your case against the UK.

We give information and support the meetings and gatherings of the Member States but what happens within a country is sovereign territory and the United Nations cannot dictate.

Perhaps seeking advice from IDF would answer your question as to whether the European Court of Human Rights could be of any assistance. We are sure that IDF has come across similar cases around the world.

Sincerely,

Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

I immediately sent another email reply to Enable:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your reply.

I trust that I can do the following:

In your webpage http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/CRPDIndex.aspx

It states "The Optional Protocol to the Convention gives the Committee competence to examine individual complaints with regard to alleged violations of the Convention by States parties to the Protocol."

The United Kingdom has signed the Optional Protocol, so I can raise an individual complaint with regard to alleged violations of the Convention by the United Kingdom.

I would now like to raise this complaint (I believe you refer to this as a 'communication').

However on 25 June 2010 I emailed you, as I had received a reply back from tb-petitions@ohchr.org which stated that they were not going to accept the communication.

Have you contacted tb-petitions, and made them aware that I wish to lodge a 'communication' with them against the United Kingdom regarding alleged violations of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

Once you have contacted tb-petitions, and they will accept my 'communication' that should be the end of this matter with Enable.

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

The last email I received that day was very late in the day, and it was another email reply from Enable:

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

The Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights is fully aware that you wanted to place a complaint after contacting us since they know that it is this particular office which gives the details of the information for petitioning.

We will re-send your e-mail to them requesting clarification. Perhaps someone will re-read your complaint.

Sincerely,

Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The next day I received the following email from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I would be grateful if you could contact me by telephone on 0131 240 6819 to discuss your e-mail.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

I then sent the following email reply back to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

I tried to call you at 12:30 but you unfortunately had gone to lunch.

I will be out in the afternoon, so could you please send me a brief email regarding the proposed discussion points that you refer to in your last email, and I can perhaps call you again either tomorrow, or next week.

I would however prefer everything in writing via email, as I am in the process of appealing the costs to a higher court, and I have already referred two Solicitors to the SLCC regarding these costs and the use of Sheriff Officers, and I am likely to refer a third Solicitor to the SLCC regarding my last email to you.

Mr K McAlpine

Later that afternoon I received another email from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

In terms of Rule of Court 42.1.(2)(a), any party found entitled to expenses shall lodge an account of expenses in process not later than four months after the final interlocutor in which a finding in respect of expenses is made.

The aforementioned process is held within the court. Once lodged the account is transmitted within the court process to the offices of the Auditor by the court.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

The last email I sent that day was to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Your comments are irrelevant to the questions that I asked.

The Respondent (McGrigors) have clearly stated in writing "We will proceed to lodge no later than 1 November 2010 the Account with the Court for taxation" in the letter dated 14 October 2010.

It is clear to any person that as of 14 October 2010, the Respondent had NOT lodged the Account with the Court for taxation.

Where does it state in Court of Session Rule of Court 42, that the Respondent (McGrigors) sends an account of expenses directly to the Appellant (Mr K McAlpine), without first lodging the account?

I will therefore ask the same questions again, and must press you for an answer in writing, which will form part of my appeal to the higher Court:

Is this a breach of the Court of Session Rules of Court 42?

If so, do I refer this to the SLCC?

If so, what is the Auditor of the Court of Session going to do about this breach of the Court of Session Rules of Court 42?

Thanks,

The next day I sent the following email to The Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers:

Dear Sir,

I must set your perceived facts straight.

In your last email you stated "Following upon a letter from Stirling Park seeking an appointment with you..."

I never received any communication at all from Stirling Park, the first I knew about anyone looking for me was when a neighbour informed my wife that someone was looking for me.

In your last email you stated "a meeting took place in which the officer..."

This was not an arranged meeting, the officer turned up at my house for a second time, and just happened to get me in.

I have also referred both Solicitors to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC). Can I complain to the SLCC regarding a Sheriff Officer?

You have stated that the Sheriff Officer was making inquiries about my ability to pay, but did not know the total of the amount I may have to pay, so can you explain to me, and the higher Court to which I am appealing, how a Sheriff Officer can possibly make inquiries about someones ability to pay when they do not know the total amount that person has to pay?

Mr K McAlpine

Later that day I received the following email from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

The Auditor has asked me to advise you that if you consider that there has been a breach of the Court of Session rules here, that is something you will have to raise with him at the diet of taxation in due course. This office cannot advise you further.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

The next day I received the following email reply from the International Disability Alliance:

Dear McAlpine,

I am checking with my colleagues if there is something we can do at this stage.

Kind regards

Stefan Trömel

Executive Director

International Disability Alliance

Later that evening I received the following email from the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

My colleague Victoria Lee, who has experience in cases that have been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights would like to know if it would be possible for you to send us your ECHR application?

If we consider that the case is substantial, we could try to support you in that before the ECtHR. During the first stage of lodging the application this is not obligatory but it is if it moves onto the next stage. or we could support his representation to ensure that the CRPD is upheld).

Kind regards

Stefan Trömel

Executive Director

International Disability Alliance

Two days later I sent the following email to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached two completed and signed complaint forms and one other attachment to this email entitled "Documents", to support these complaints, and for the section entitled "Have you complained to the practitioner concerned".

I would prefer that the complaints against two Solicitors are treated as one complaint, as these complaints are basically the same.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

The first document lodged was a completed complaint form, relevant extracts below:

Section 2 – About your complaint

A solicitor? Yes

Name of person: Euan Smith

What are you complaining about?

An award of expenses was made against me at the Court of Session. The Court of Session referred this award to the Auditor of the Court of Session.

The Court of Session, Rules of Court, Chapter 42, Rule 42.1.(2), clearly states that an account of expenses has to be lodged with the Court before sending a copy of the account of expenses to the paying party, which is myself.

On 14 October 2010, I received a letter from Mr Euan Smith of McGrigors with an additional 12 pages, including an account of expenses, and in the letter it clearly states "We will proceed to lodge no later than 1 November 2010 the Account with the Court for taxation."

This is clearly against the Court of Session, Rules of Court, Chapter 42, and is an attempt to bypass the Auditor of the Court of Session and the diet of taxation process that checks the expenses that have been lodged. It is an attempt to possibly embezzle more expenses by bypassing the diet of taxation process, and this is clear from the letter dated 14 October 2010, which clearly states "In the meantime, should you have any proposals for settlement of the Account, please contact us directly."

This is also linked to SLCC case reference 201000571.

The second document lodged was a completed complaint form, relevant extracts below:

Section 2 – About your complaint

A solicitor? Yes

Name of person: Kenneth M Cumming

Name of firm (as needed): Auditor of Court of Session

What are you complaining about?

On 26 October 2010 I notified The Auditor of the Court of Session that I had received a letter with an attached account of expenses from Euan Smith of McGrigors, and that on receiving this letter with an attached account of expenses, it had broken the Court of Session, Rules of Court, Chapter 42.

The Auditor of the Court of Session then attempted to cover up for McGrigors by stating a part of the Court of Session, Rules of Court, Chapter 42 that was irrelevant to the questions that I posed.

After pointing this irrelevance out, the Auditor of the Court of Session still maintained that the diet of taxation would still proceed, thereby still allowing McGrigors to recover expenses, despite McGrigors not following the Court of Session, Rules of Court, Chapter 42.

This is also linked to SLCC case reference 201000571.

The third document lodged was evidence, relevant parts of evidence below:

CHAPTER 42

TAXATION OF ACCOUNTS AND FEES OF SOLICITORS

PART I

TAXATION OF ACCOUNTS

(2) Any party found entitled to expenses shall-

(a) lodge an account of expenses in process not later than four months after the final interlocutor in which a finding in respect of expenses is made;

(b) if he has failed to comply with sub-paragraph (a), lodge such account at any time with leave of the court but subject to such conditions (if any) as the court thinks fit to impose; and

(c) on lodging an account under sub-paragraph (a) or (b), intimate a copy of it forthwith to the party found liable to pay those expenses.

Also lodged as evidence were the various emails showing that everything outlined in the complaint had happened.

Later that same day I received the following email from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir,

We acknowledge receipt of your inquiry.

The Secretariat of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities notes your claim that your complaint to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is based on the European Convention of Human Rights, while the one before the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) would be based on the Convention.

If you wish to submit a communication to the CRPD, you are invited to explain the facts on the basis of which you claim a violation of the Covnention, the articles you invoke, domestic remedies you have exhausted, including copies of relevant court decisions, as well as to substantiate how the communication before the Committee differs from your submission to the ECHR, apart from the difference in legal basis.

Please find attached Factsheet No. 7 for your information. Kindly also note the Committee's website: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/CRPDIndex.aspx

Yours sincerely,

Petitions Unit

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Palais des Nations

CH-1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

On 2 November 2010 I received the following email from the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Mr McAlpine

My colleagues at the International Disability Alliance forwarded me your email. EDF is planning to start some work on helping persons with disabilities to get redress from national and international courts. Would you please send me some additional info about the case so that I can see what kind of help we can provide to you (if any). Are you in contact with a lawyer?

Many thanks

Janina Arsenjeva

Policy and European Parliament officer

Later that day I sent another email to the International Diabetes Federation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent my last email to you around four weeks ago regarding discrimination against Diabetics, but have not received a reply to my original email dated 5 March 2010, which is listed at the bottom of this email.

Can you let me know when I can expect a reply?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

The next day I sent the following email to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email on 1 November 2010.

I am currently preparing my communication.

Can you explain what you mean by "as well as to substantiate how the communication before the Committee differs from your submission to the ECHR, apart from the difference in legal basis"?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Later that day I received the following email reply from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir,

We acknowledge receipt of your further inquiry.

The Secretariat reiterates that, pursuant to article 2, paragraph c, of the Optional Protocol, the Committee shall consider a communication inadmissible when the same matter (same facts, same author, same rights) has already been examined by the Committee or has been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement (this includes the European Court for Human Rights). You therefore need to substantiate how your communication before the Committee relates to a different matter than the one you submitted to the European Court for Human Rights.

Yours sincerely,

Petitions Unit

I also sent a revised summary of complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission which read:

Complainer: Mr Kenneth McAlpine

Complaint ref: 201000571

Practitioner: Miss Maureen Hall, Mr Alan Nicholson, Mr Euan Smith

Summary of complaint

What you are complaining about

I, Kenneth McAlpine, wish to complain about Miss Maureen Hall, Mr Alan Nicholson and Mr Euan Smith, of McGrigors, in relation to their actions in connection with the recovery of an award of expenses made against me. The main point of my complaint is:

1. McGrigors had failed to contact me regarding the amount of the award of expenses made against me at the Court of Session, as of 8 September 2010. The amount of the award of expenses was unknown, however, Sheriff Officers were instructed by McGrigors and were present on my street, making enquiries of my neighbours, on 8 September 2010.

2. I received a letter from Mr Euan Smith on 14 October 2010 which included an account of expenses and stated "we will proceed to lodge no later than the 1 November 2010 the Account with the court for taxation". This is clearly in violation of Chapter 42, Rule 42.1.(2), which states that an account of expenses has to be lodged with the Court before a copy is sent to the paying party.

How this has affected you

1. I feel the actions of McGrigors amount to harassment and persecution.

2. I live in a small street in a small village, which is made up of middle, to upper-middle class homes. For Sheriff Officers to be present on this street, making enquiries of my neighbours concerning me, has been deeply embarrassing for both myself and my family.

3. These issues are a disgrace which have caused untold stress and intimidation to myself and my family, as they have attempted to embezzle more money, not only from myself, but from my wife and children also.

What you would like to happen to resolve the problem

1. I would like Maureen Hall, Alan Nicholson and Euan Smith to be struck off as solicitors.

2. I would like McGrigors to be fined.

I confirm that this is an accurate and complete summary of my complaint.

Chapter 12

It was now 5 November 2010 and I sent the following email to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have reviewed the attached Summary of Complaint.

Can you change the wording in "What you are complaining about" point 1 to:

1. McGrigors had failed to contact me regarding the amount of the award of expenses made against me at the Court of Session, as of 8 September 2010. The amount of the award of expenses was unknown, however, Sheriff Officers were instructed by McGrigors and were present on my street, making enquiries of my neighbours, on 8 September 2010.

If you want to reword yourself, I have no problem with that. The important point to make here is that as of 8 September 2010, no-one, including McGrigors, knew the amount of the award of expenses, yet Sheriff Officers were on my street.

You also sent me the document attached twice.

Can you also inform me of my complaint against the Auditor of the Court of Session, who was made aware of these complaints, but did nothing.

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Later that afternoon I received the following email from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Please find attached documents pertaining to your complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Dishon

Case Officer

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Attached was one document with a summary of my complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.

I then sent an email to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Can you confirm the following:

1: Has McGrigors lodged an account of expenses (should have been lodged by 1 November 2010) regarding this action?

2: Is the Auditor of the Court of Session a Solicitor?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Later that evening I sent the following email to the European Disability Forum and to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Janina,

Please find attached a copy of my main disability discrimination application to the ECtHR.

The main disability discrimination application was joined up with an earlier reasonable adjustments application.

My application number at the ECtHR is 40103/08.

I do not have a lawyer.

Thanks,

Kenneth

I then sent another email to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Stefan,

I have received an email from UN Enable stating that they may accept an application to the UN regarding this disability discrimination under the CRPD convention.

However, what they did state was that as the ECtHR has an application, this may exclude the UN from accepting my application.

Are you aware of any cases that have been examined by both the ECtHR and UN as this would help me prove to the UN that both the ECtHR and the UN have examined the same cases.

When the UN emailed me, they stated "You therefore need to substantiate how your communication before the Committee relates to a different matter than the one you submitted to the European Court for Human Rights."

How could I do this, apart from pointing out that the two conventions are different, and therefore the two matters are different?

Thanks,

Kenneth

The last email I received that day was from the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Kenneth,

The general rule for all international human rights bodies is that the same matter can only be dealt with by one international body.

Sometimes, it is possible to resubmit the same matter to a different body, but you can not have the same issue being looked at by two bodies.

I will however ask my colleague with more experience and who I am copying into this look at this (in)compatibility.

Kind regards

Stefan

Five days later I received another email from the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Kenneth,

Yes, Stefan is right. The UN CRPD Committee would not admit your application until it is no longer pending before the European Court, and may or may not accept it considering whether it is resolved before the Court or deemed inadmissible.

So you would have to choose now to which body you would like to go through with, and you could consider different factors to make this decision - likelihood of admissibility, likelihood of success, remedy that can be provided etc.

Stefan has sent me your application sent to the Court, on its basis it is stil quite difficult to assess how strong your case is and if you fulfil the requirements of admissibility. I don't believe that the European Court would accept that an email excahnge with someone from the Supreme Court would suffice as exhausting domestic remedies- firstly the Supreme Court has not been privy to your case and judges have not had a chance to examine and consider it.

Just by some quick research (I am not from UK and hence not very familiar with the court system there), it seems that to have your case lodged to the Supreme Court you need two advocates to certify that an appeal is suitable. Did you try and obtain this certification? Was it rejected/granted? If you don't go through ths requirement, then it is highly likely your application will be deemed inadmissible. I would strongly suggest that you take action now, to continue to exhaust domestic remedies, i.e. obtainig this certiication and lodging your case to the Supreme Court and receiving a decision from them.

If you happen to have the decisions from the instances you approached in electronic form, please do send them to me so I can get more of an idea about your case, if you don't mind, so I can be in a better position to provide you with some advice.

If you have particular questions about what I've written, please don't hesitate to ask.

Kind regards,

Victoria Lee

I immediately sent the following email reply to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Victoria,

Thank you for your last email.

I am currently finishing an appeal application to the UN CRPD. I have already had an email exchange, lasting months, with UN Enable, who were very nice and helpful with my case. I raised the point that the UK, as well as many European countries, have signed both the ECHR and CRPD, so why can't the UK be 'examined' under both, as a criminal, if he breaks two laws, should be tried under the two laws, not one.

I have read your comments on the ECHR, perhaps some more information would useful at this stage:

My first appeal to the ECHR was lodged in December 2008. I wrote to the Court to get the disability part joined up early this year, which the ECHR did, and the Court also stated "The Court will probably examine the above case by the end of the year."

Regarding the UK Supreme Court, I emailed the UK Supreme Court Registry, and received the email reply from the UK Supreme Court Registry stating they had no jurisdiction, something to do with Rule 40 of Court of Session. In the email I sent them I also asked about having to get two Advocates to sign the appeal, but this question among other questions was ignored because they have no jurisdiction.

Please suggest what else could have been done, if you write to the UK Supreme Court Registry and they state that they have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal?

If the UK Supreme Court had written back stating that they had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, then I would have taken the appeal to two Advocates.

Jurisdiction to me, means that either the Country (Scotland), or the fact that the appeal was civil rather than criminal, or that the Inner House heard the appeal, results in the UK Supreme Court having no jurisdiction.

I have attached the email from UK Supreme Court Registry.

Thanks,

Kenneth

I then sent another email to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Victoria,

You asked for a copy of the earlier judgements concerning this case.

I am presently just finishing off my appeal to the UN under the CRPD, and I will send this to you either later on today, or tomorrow at the latest.

This appeal will contain all the earlier judgements concerning this case, and if you wish, you can give me your comments on my CRPD appeal. It will be a large file, some 6Mb in size as all the documents are scanned.

I would be absolutely livid if either the ECtHR or the UN, or both, do not accept these appeals, and would then make all documents and evidence available on the internet, to show how the legal systems treat disability discrimination, as well as to make other diabetics aware of this case, and their rights to possibly take a group action law suit out against all parties concerned. It is disgraceful that persons with disabilities are labelled as having future sickness absence.

Thanks,

Kenneth

Later that afternoon I received the following email reply from the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Kenneth,

Thanks for these clarifications.

re: the email you received, it is very vague. It would be useful to have access to the decision which you sent them

Regarding submitting applications to both the CRPD Committe and the European Court; the reason why both mechanisms have this rule (on non-simultaneous examination of the matter by another internatinal mechanism), is that the "defendant" in both cases is the UK and it would not be possibel that the UK be "tried" twice for the same thing by two different bodies. It is a pretty much standard rule in international law, and there's no way around it.

Of course, if the European Court deems your application inadmissible, then you can take your case before the CRPD Committee, it just cannot be examined simultaneously. the CRPD Committee procedure is much more flexible than the European Court, it does not require you to lodge your application with them within a strict time frame (whereas the European Court has a very strict 6 month rule), however in terms of remedies, the CRpD Committe does not have much power to oblige the UK to provide a remedy (should your case be successful), whereas the European Court's judgment is binding on the UK and the European Court can order compensation and other measures.

Given that you will not be permitted to have 2 cases going on simultaneously (either the one or the other, or the both) will throw out your case, I would advise you to stick with the european Court proceudre to see where it can take you. If you are unsuccessful for one reason or another, then you could go to the CRPD Committee.

Kind regards,

Victoria

I then received an email reply from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Please find attached information relevant to your complaint.

Nick Dishon

Case Officer

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Attached document read:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Complaint about Miss Maureen Hall, Mr Alan Nicholson and Mr Euan Smith of McGrigors LLP MNP

Thank you for your signed statement of complaint which we received on 10 November 2010.

As per my letter to you of 19 October 2010, the next stage of our complaints process is to assess whether your complaint is eligible for investigation. There is more information about this on our website, but in summary, we have to decide whether your complaint meets the criteria set out in sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 (the Act) and so can be accepted for investigation.

We will write to you again to tell you whether or not your complaint is eligible.

I then sent another email reply back to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Victoria,

Thanks for this advice, I was actually thinking the same myself, as the ECHR stated that it would probably examine the case by the end of the year, so the delay in getting it to the CRPD would not be much.

I have attached the court of session judgement (dor2801.doc) and the two documents I put to the court regarding Law and Merits, but unfortunately you do not have the evidence I lodged in the court, although you should be able to see the arguments.

Thanks,

Kenneth

The final email I sent that day was to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Victoria,

Please find attached a selection of the evidence lodged throughout this case and referred to in appeals.

I also checked with the UK authorities, who confirmed that Oracle Corporation UK Limited did not lodge an HR1 form with them which they are legally bound to do for redundancies over 20 people in 2006. Oracle Corporation UK Limited stated that they had made 121 people redundant in the UK in 2006.

Thanks,

Kenneth

After a further five days had past, I decided to send the following email to the European Disability Forum:

Dear Janina,

Have you had a chance to look at my case, and if so, offer me any help?

Thanks,

Kenneth

The next morning I received the following email from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your e-mail below and can confirm that the account was lodged in the court process on the 28th of October. With regard to your second query, Mr Cumming was a litigation solicitor for 29 years before being appointed Auditor.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

Later that day I sent an email reply back to the Auditot of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

When can I expect a copy of the account according to Rule 41.2.(c)?

When can I expect an intimation of the diet according to Rule 42.2.(1)(b)(ii)?

Mr K McAlpine

The next morning I received another email reply from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your e-mail below and would advise that this office is not able to advise you of when the receiving party will be intimating a copy of the account to you. With regard to your second query, a diet of taxation has been fixed for 9th December 2010 at 11:45am. Formal intimation of the diet was sent from this office by post yesterday.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

I then sent the following email to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Sir,

I called you last week concerning a complaint against Solicitors at McGrigors, and a complaint against the Auditor of the Court of Session.

During the conversation on the phone, we were both not sure whether the Auditor of the Court of Session was a Solicitor or an Accountant, or both, hence I could not lodge a complaint until this was known.

I have since written to the Auditor of the Court of Session, and have now received an email from the Auditor of the Court of Session office stating that the Auditor of the Court of Session is indeed a Solicitor, and has been a Solicitor for some 29 years.

I now wish to lodge a complaint against the Auditor of the Court of Session with the SLCC, so please find attached a completed complaint form.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Later that same morning I sent another email to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

I have received your "Notice of diet of taxation" today.

At point 1 it states:

"Intimation of the above diet is being given by the Auditor to the Solicitors, who appear, from the Court Process, to be representing the paying party, which failing the paying party....."

McGrigors are NOT the paying party. McGrigors have lodged the account of expenses, so are the receiving party.

I, Mr Kenneth McAlpine, am the paying party.

Why is this the opposite in your letter dated 16 November 2010?

I trust that you will correct and send out a clear "Notice of diet of taxation" letter stating who is the paying party.

Mr K McAlpine

I then received the following email from the European Disability Forum:

Dear Aire Centre

Following my phone conversation with your Advice Line, here is the application of Mr McAlpine (that he has already submitted to the ECHR). As EDF does not have any experience in litigation (although we are looking to develop it in order to assist our member organization) but has extensive expertise in disability discrimination, I was wondering if you would be able to give Mr McAlpine (who is not represented by a lawyer) any advice, particularly, on the procedure. EDF would be very interested to contribute to the development of disability-specific arguments, but as our line of work is mainly political, we would not be able to lead on this case.

Please inform Mr McAlpine and copy me in.

Many thanks,

Janina Arsenjeva

Policy and European Parliament officer

Later that afternoon I received the following email from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your e-mail, which I received earlier today.

I was wondering if you would be able to provide me with a copy of the e-mail which you received from the Auditor of the Court of Session's office, stating that the Auditor of the Court of Session is indeed a Solicitor.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Dishon

Case Officer

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

The last email I sent that day was to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Sir,

See attached email.

Mr K McAlpine

Attached was email from the Auditor of the Court of Session received 16 November 2010.

On 18 November 2010 I received the following letter from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

AUDITOR OF THE COURT OF SESSION

NOTICE OF DIET OF TAXATION

TO: KENNETH MCALPINE ESQ

Date: 16 November 2010

Our Ref: 54263

Case: KENNETH MCALPINE APPEAL ORACLE CORPORATION UK LTD

A diet of taxation in this case will take place in the Auditor's Chambers, 120 The Cowgate, Edinburgh, EH1 1JN.

On: 9 December 2010 at 11.45 a.m.

Any queries with regard to this taxation should be made to Mrs. Wilcher.

Frances Delaney (Ms)

Principal Clerk

Intimation of the diet of taxation is being made to:

MCGRIGORS: KENNETH MCALPINE ESQ

1. Intimation of Diet

Intimation of the above diet is being given by the Auditor to the Solicitors, who appear, from the Court Process, to be representing the paying party, which failing to the paying party. If the party presenting the Account knows of any change in representation, or change of address, of the paying party, the Auditor's Office should be informed of that immediately. The Solicitors presenting the Account should also take appropriate steps to inform the paying party of the date, time and place of the diet of taxation. If the Auditor is not satisfied with the steps taken to give intimation of the diet, he may adjourn the taxation to another date.

2. Objection to Account

If the party from whom payment is sought wishes to object to any items in the Account that party is required to lodge a written note of the specific points of objection to it NOT LATER THAN 4PM ON THE FOURTH BUSINESS DAY BEFORE THE DIET OF TAXATION [R.C. 42.2.1A] and is also required to attend, or be represented at, the diet to speak in support of the objections.

PLEASE NOTE THAT NO FURTHER REMINDER REGARDING NOTE 2 WILL BE ISSUED FROM THIS OFFICE.

3. Withdrawal of Account

Should the party who has presented the Account no longer require it to be taxed, that party must notify the Auditor forthwith to that effect.

On 23 November 2010 I sent the following email to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Your Reference: 54263

I have received your "NOTICE OF DIET OF TAXATION" and I have a number of issues which I wish to raise:

1: Since lodging the account of expenses at the Court of Session on 28 October 2010, I have received no copy of the account of expenses, this is a breach of the Court of Session Rule of Court 42.1.(2).(c).

2: As outlined in your "NOTICE OF DIET OF TAXATION", I have not received notification of the date, time and place of the diet of taxation from the Solicitors presenting the account.

3: I have received a "NOTICE OF DIET OF TAXATION" direct from the Auditor, where does it state that the Auditor contacts the paying party directly?

4: I have been contacting the Auditor of the Court of Session over the last five weeks regarding the conduct of the Solicitors representing Oracle Corporation UK Limited. Sheriff Officers arriving at my door to enquire about an account of expenses that had not even been drawn up yet and was an unknown amount, as well as these Solicitors sending me an account of expenses 2 weeks before lodging the account of expenses at the Court of Session, and inviting me to pay this account of expenses before it has been audited. Because the Auditor has not taken any action, and has now decided that this diet of taxation should proceed, I have reported the Auditor to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission on 1 November 2010, as well as the Solicitors involved from McGrigors.

Can you inform me whether this diet of taxation can proceed on 9 December 2010 at 11:45am?

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I then received an email from the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Kenneth,

I apologise for my delayed response.

At this point, I think the best thing is that we remain in contact, please keep me up to date with any news you hear from the European Court and also the UN Treaty bodies petition division.

I am quite surprised that you have heard that the Court could treat your application before the end of the year, it usually takes many years for it to go through (due to their very heavy backlog of cases). If you insist on taking this forward with the CRPD Committee, please be aware, as I have mentioned, that it could be declared inadmissible due to its pending status before the European Court. However, nothing will stop you from re-lodging your application before the CRPD Committee once it has gone through the European Court system.

Kind regards,

Victoria

The Auditor of the Court of Session then sent me the following email:

Dear Mr McAlpine

As presently advised and unless cancelled by or with the consent of the receiving party the diet of taxation will be proceeding.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

I then sent the following email reply to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

I will therefore lodge a written objection, but will not be attending in person.

Mr K McAlpine

The final email that I sent that day was also to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

Due to the now ridiculous nature of this diet of taxation:

Can you advise me how I should lodge an objection to an account of expenses I have yet to receive?

Mr McAlpine

I then received the following letter to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission around 24 November 2010:

SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

22 November 2010

Our ref: 201001191

Dear Mr McAlpine

Complaint about Mr Kenneth Cumming, Auditor of the Court of Session

I write further to our e-mail correspondence of 17 November 2010.

You may recall our telephone conversation of 5 November 2010, during which I informed you that the Auditor of the Court of Session, against whom you wished to raise a complaint, was not a practising solicitor or advocate, therefore the SLCC did not have jurisdiction to investigate the issues you wished to complain about.

You contacted the SLCC again on 17 November 2010 with regard to this complaint and informed me that you had written to the office of the Auditor of the Court of Session and had received a reply confirming that the Auditor "is indeed a solicitor and has been a solicitor for 29 years". I note, from the copy of your correspondence which you provided to me, the Auditor's office actually state that Mr Cumming was a litigation solicitor for 29 years before being appointed Auditor.

I recognise that this may appear to be a very slight difference, but it is crucial to the SLCC's power to investigate your complaint. As I confirmed to you during our telephone conversation of 5 November 2010, Mr Cumming is not currently on the roll of solicitors, as kept by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. I have also confirmed with the Law Society of Scotland that Mr Cumming was not on the roll of solicitors at the time of the events about which you were seeking to raise your complaint.

As a result of the above, the SLCC will not be able to accept this complaint for investigation and will take no further action in relation to it. If you wish to continue with your complaint, I can only repeat my advice of 5 November 2010, which was to contact the Scottish Courts Service, or the Court of Session directly, to establish their complaints procedure.

If there is any aspect of this letter, or the SLCC's Complaint process in general, which you do not understand or would like to discuss further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely

Nick Dishon

On 24 November 2010 I received the following email reply from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

With reference to your e-mail to this office dated 26th October 2010 you received a copy of the account of expenses from the receiving party under the cover of their letter of 14th October 2010. If you are in any doubt that the copy you received is different to the one lodged in process then you should contact the receiving party for clarification.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

As you have stated in your last email, I have received AN account of expenses, but do not know whether I have received THE account of expenses lodged at the Court of Session.

I do not trust the receiving party whatsoever.

Can I suggest that you send me a copy of THE account of expenses that was lodged at the Court of Session, as this is the only way that I can insure that I have the same copy that is going to be audited.

Obviously, this will cut down on the amount of time I have to review THE account of expenses, and lodge an objection.

You can perhaps now see how ridiculous this process has become.

Mr McAlpine

The last email that I received that day was from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Please find attached a copy of the account of expenses that is lodged in process.

I note that you will not be attending the diet in person and would advise, with reference to rule of court 42.4.(1), that you may lose the right to object to the Auditor's report if you do not appear or are not represented at the diet of taxation.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

Attached to this email was a document with the same first three pages as the document I had received from McGrigors on 14 October 2010.

The next day I received the following email from the AIRE Centre:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

We have been contacted by the European Disability Forum in relation to your pending application before the European Court of Human Rights. Your request has been assigned case number F.183.

We note that you have already submitted your full application to the Court. At this stage, there is no automatic right to submit further submissions to the Court until the Court has considered the admissibility of your application.

If the Court informs you that your claim has been declared admissible, please get in contact us again in order to discuss the case with us.

If you have further concerns please do not hesitate to contact me at caseworker13@airecentre.org or Helena Wilson at hwilson@airecentre.org.

Yours sincerely,

Lucille Micheletto

caseworker

The last email I sent that day was to the AIRE Centre:

Dear Lucille,

Thank you for your email.

Just to update you on where this application is:

(1): I lodged the first application (reasonable adjustments) with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 December 2008.

(2): This application was given the Application Number 40103/08.

(3): I then sent a further application (disability discrimination), which you have a copy of, and asked the European Court of Human Rights to merge this application with the application outlined in (1). The European Court of Human Rights agreed to this request, and this application was included in the file.

(4): The European Court of Human Rights also stated in their letter of 18 March 2010 that my case would be examined by the end of the year. File attached.

My questions are:

5: As this case has been with the European Court of Human Rights for 2 years, has admissibility been considered?

6: In the letter from the European Court of Human Rights dated 18 March 2010 what does 'examine' mean?

7: As most applications to the European Court of Human Rights fail at the admissibility stage, is there anything that can be done to improve the chances of this case being admissible, if it hasn't already passed the admissible stage?

Thanks,

Kenneth

The next day I sent the following email to the Scottish Courts Service:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been referred to the Scottish Courts Service from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, as, seemingly, the Auditor of the Court of Session is not at present a Solicitor, and for that reason, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission cannot handle the complaint.

I have attached the email I sent to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, and their completed complaint form in this email.

If you require any further evidence in support of this complaint, or more details, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Can you handle this complaint?

Mr McAlpine

I then sent the following email reply to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter dated 22 November 2010, your reference 201001191.

I find your letter dated 22 November 2010 and your play on words extremely strange, bordering on child like.

In this letter you state "the Auditor's office actually state that Mr Cumming was (in italics) a litigation solicitor for 29 years before (in italics) being appointed Auditor".

Of course the Auditor's office is going to state the words "was (in italics)" and "before (in italics)", simply because the Auditor WAS a litigation solicitor BEFORE being appointed Auditor, just like I WAS an engineer BEFORE becoming an IT Consultant.

This certainly does not mean that Mr Cumming (Auditor) is not a solicitor. The only way Mr Cumming would not be a solicitor, is if he was struck off as a solicitor.

If Mr Cumming (Auditor) has not been struck off as a solicitor, then he is still a solicitor, and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the SLCC.

Mr K McAlpine

I then received the following email from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Please find attached information relevant to your complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Dishon

Case Officer

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Attached document read:

SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

26 November 2010

Our ref: 201001191

Dear Mr McAlpine

Complaint about Mr Kenneth Cumming, Auditor of the Court of Session

Thank you for your e-mail, which I received earlier today.

I was disappointed to read that you were unhappy with my previous letter to you, dated 22 November 2010.

You will note that the quoted section of your e-mail was originally contained within an e-mail to you from the office of the Auditor of the Court of Session, and was not information provided to you by the SLCC. The purpose of including this section in my last letter to you was to attempt to explain where the confusion may have arisen in this scenario. I regret I do not appear to have achieved this aim.

In the hope of avoiding further confusion, I would add that the jurisdiction of the SLCC in this regard is outlined in the terms of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. I informed you, in my letter of 22 November 2010, that I have confirmed with the Law Society of Scotland that Mr Cumming was not on the roll of solicitors at the time of the events about which you were seeking to raise your complaint. You state in your e-mail that you believe that "the only way Mr Cumming would not be a solicitor, is if he was struck off as a solicitor". I can confirm this is not correct and that there are other ways in which solicitors may be removed from the roll.

As a result of the above, the SLCC will not be able to accept this complaint for investigation and will take no further action in relation to it. If you wish to continue with your complaint, I can only repeat my advice of 5 November 2010, which was to contact the Scottish Courts Service, or the Court of Session directly, to establish their complaints procedure.

If there is any aspect of this letter, or the SLCC's Complaint process in general, which you do not understand or would like to discuss further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Nick Dishon

Case Officer

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

I immediately sent the following email reply back to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email and attached letter dated 26 November 2010.

In this attached letter you quote "Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007" as the jurisdiction of the SLCC.

Can you please quote the exact rule in the "Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007" that you rely on which makes an investigation into Mr Cumming impossible?

If you cannot quote the exact rule in the "Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007" then the investigation into Mr Cumming must proceed.

Mr McAlpine

That same day I received the following email reply from the Scottish Court Service:

Dear Mr McAlpine.

I write to acknowledge your e-mail to Scottish Court Service on 26th November 2010.

Please be advised that since your complaint is in regards to the Auditor of the Court of Session who is, as far as I am aware, appointed by the Scottish Ministers, your correspondence has been forwarded to the Legal System Division of the Scottish Government for reply. Contact details for that office, should you require them, are as follows:

Justice Directorate

Legal System Division

Legal Services

Floor 2w

St Andrews House,

Regent Road,

Edinburgh,

EH1 3DG

General Enquiries

Telephone Enquiry Line: 0131 556 8400

Email: General Enquiries mailbox: ceu@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

I hope this is of some assistance to you.

Yours sincerely

Ella Ritchie

EO - Secretariat

Scottish Court Service Headquarters

I then received the following email from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Please find attached information relevant to your complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Dishon

Case Officer

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Attached document read:

SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

26 November 2010

Our ref: 201001191

Dear Mr McAlpine

Complaint about Mr Kenneth Cumming, Auditor of the Court of Session

Thank you for your e-mail, which I received earlier today.

I note you have requested that the SLCC provide you with information relating to the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007. Specifically, you have asked that we "quote the exact rule" which means that an investigation into the matters, which you have complained about Mr Kenneth Cumming in relation to, would be outwith the jurisdiction of the SLCC.

Please note that the SLCC's decision in relation to jurisdiction of this matter is not based on "one rule", but rather on the consideration of several parts of the 2007 Act. I have detailed the relevant sections below:

Section 2 of the 2007 Act details the scenarios in which the SLCC may have jurisdiction to investigate complaints. Section 2 refers to "practitioners" and the interpretation of this term is set out in Section 46(1) as stated below:

46(1) "practitioner" means—

(a) an advocate and includes any advocate whether or not a member of the Faculty of Advocates at the time when it is suggested the conduct complained of occurred or the services complained of were provided and notwithstanding that subsequent to that time the advocate has ceased to be such a member;

(b) a conveyancing practitioner and includes any such practitioner, whether or not registered at that time and notwithstanding that subsequent to that time the practitioner has ceased to be so registered;

(c) an executry practitioner and includes any such practitioner, whether or not registered at that time and notwithstanding that subsequent to that time the practitioner has ceased to be so registered;

(d) a firm of solicitors, whether or not since that time there has been any change in the firm by the addition of a new partner or the death or resignation of an existing partner or the firm has ceased to practise;

(e) an incorporated practice, whether or not since that time there has been any change in the persons exercising the management and control of the practice or the practice has ceased to be recognised by virtue of section 34(1A) of the 1980 Act or has been wound up;

(f) a person exercising a right to conduct litigation or a right of audience acquired by virtue of section 27 of the 1990 Act and includes any such person, whether or not the person had acquired the right at that time and notwithstanding that subsequent to that time the person no longer has the right;

(g) a solicitor, whether or not the solicitor had a practising certificate in force at that time and notwithstanding that subsequent to that time the name of the solicitor has been removed from or struck off the roll or the solicitor has ceased to practise or has been suspended from practice;

Section 46(1) defines a "solicitor" as stated below:

"solicitor" means any person enrolled or deemed to have been enrolled as a solicitor in pursuance of the 1980 Act;

Section 80 of the 2007 Act interprets "the 1980 Act" as stated below:

"the 1980 Act" means the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 46);

Section 4 of the 1980 Act states the definition of a person qualified to practise as a solicitor as stated below:

4. Qualifications for practising as a solicitor.

\- No person shall be qualified to practise as a solicitor unless-

(a) he has been admitted as a solicitor; and

(b) his name is on the roll; and

(c) subject to section 24, he has in force a certificate issued by the Council in accordance with the provisions of this Part authorising him to practise as a solicitor (referred to in this Act as a "practising certificate").

I have previously informed you, in my letter dated 22 November 2010 and my e-mail which you received earlier today, that I have confirmed with the Law Society of Scotland that Mr Cumming was not on the roll of solicitors at the time of the events about which you were seeking to raise your complaint. If you have reason to believe this is not correct, please let me know as soon as possible.

In the absence of information indicating that Mr Cumming was on the roll of solicitors at the time of the events detailed in your complaint, the SLCC will not be able to accept this complaint for investigation and will take no further action in relation to it.

If you wish to continue with your complaint, I can only repeat my advice of 5 November 2010, which was to contact the Scottish Courts Service, or the Court of Session directly, to establish their complaints procedure.

If there is any aspect of this letter, or the SLCC's Complaint process in general, which you do not understand or would like to discuss further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Nick Dishon

Case Officer

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

I immediately sent the following email reply back to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Section 2 of the 2007 Act details the scenarios in which the SLCC may have jurisdiction to investigate complaints. Section 2 refers to "practitioners" and the interpretation of this term is set out in Section 46(1) as stated below:

46(1) "practitioner" means—

(g) a solicitor, whether or not the solicitor had a practising certificate in force at that time and notwithstanding that subsequent to that time the name of the solicitor has been removed from or struck off the roll or the solicitor has ceased to practise or has been suspended from practice;

1: You have stated that Section 2 of the 2007 Act details scenarios in which the SLCC may have jurisdiction to investigate complaints.

2: Section 46(1)(g) interprets practioners as being a solicitor, whether or not the solicitor had a practising certificate in force at that time and notwithstanding that subsequent to that time the name of the solicitor has been removed from or struck off the roll or the solicitor has ceased to practise or has been suspended from practice;

2a The Auditor of the Court of Session is a solicitor.

2b: The solicitor does not even have to have a practising certificate in force at the time.

2c: The solicitor did not have to be on the roll at the time.

2d: The solicitor did not have to be practising at the time.

So what is the problem with the SLCC investigating the Auditor?

You have also stated that Mr Cumming was not on the roll prior to the events, that seems to me to only indicate that he is not a practising solicitor, but it doesn't indicate that he is not a solicitor, see 2c and 2d above.

Please also refer to the link below which indicates that solicitors can be brought before the Scottish Solicitors' Disipline Tribunal whether or not they are on the roll:

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/53-8/1005593.aspx

Mr McAlpine

On 27 November 2010 I received the following letter from the law firm McGrigors:

McGrigors

25 November 2010

Our Ref PMD/EFS/OR0013.000001

Dear Sir

Kenneth McAlpine v Oracle Corporation UK Limited

Court of Session Ref No. XA165/08

We refer to our letter to you dated 14 October 2010 and our intention to lodge the Account of Expenses with the Court for taxation. We have now lodged the Account and we can confirm that a Diet of Taxation has been scheduled to take place in the Auditor's Chambers, 120 The Cowgate, Edinburgh, EH1 1JN on 9 December 2010 at 11.45am.

If you have any queries in respect of this taxation, please contact Mrs Wilcher of the Auditor of Court's office on 0131 240 6789 quoting reference 54263.

If you wish to object to any items in the Account you must lodge a written note of the specific points of objection to it not later than 4pm on the fourth business day before the Diet of Taxation. Where any objections are made, you require to attend or be represented at the diet to speak in support of the objections.

You have already been provided with a copy of the Account of Expenses.

In the meantime, should you have any proposals for settlement of the Account, please contact us directly.

Yours faithfully

Euan Smith

Partner For McGrigors LLP

On 30 November 2010 I received another email from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Please find attached information relevant to your complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Dishon

Case Officer

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Attached document read:

SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Dear Mr McAlpine

Complaint about Mr Kenneth Cumming, Auditor of the Court of Session

Thank you for your e-mail dated 26 November 2010, which I received today.

In your e-mail you state the following:

"2c: The solicitor did not have to be on the roll at the time."

I am uncertain as to how you have come to this conclusion from the information I provided to you in my last e-mail, dated 26 November 2010, but I can confirm that this is not correct. I have expanded on this in the section below.

Also in your e-mail, you state:

"You have also stated that Mr Cumming was not on the roll prior to the events, that seems to me to only indicate that he is not a practising solicitor, but it doesn't indicate that he is not a solicitor, see 2c and 2d above."

Please note that I have not stated that Mr Cumming was not on the roll prior to the events – it is whether he was on the roll at the time of the events about which you are complaining which is crucial to the assessment of whether the SLCC has jurisdiction. For the purposes of clarity, I must restate that I have confirmed with the Law Society of Scotland that Mr Cumming was not on the roll of solicitors at the time of the events about which you are seeking to raise your complaint. However, if you have reason to believe this is not correct, please let me know as soon as possible.

You have also provided a link to an online copy of the "The Journal", which is the members' magazine for the Law Society of Scotland. The article to which you have provided the link details reports relating to the actions of the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) in connection with matters of discipline against several individuals who are not related to your complaint. However, I note the purpose of including this link was to produce an example of solicitors being brought before the SSDT when they are not on the roll of the solicitors, as administered by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland.

I must point out that the SSDT is totally independent of the SLCC and the article to which you have provided a link is dated 18 August 2008, prior to the establishment of the SLCC, which took place on 1 October 2008. As the SLCC had no involvement in the proceedings to which the article refers, I am reluctant to comment further. However, I would suggest that it is possible that the complaint process which led to the individuals concerned being referred to the SSDT, began while they were still on the roll of solicitors and that they may have subsequently been removed from the roll prior to the SSDT proceedings which are reported in the article.

I must reiterate that, in the absence of information indicating that Mr Cumming was on the roll of solicitors at the time of the events detailed in your complaint, the SLCC will not be able to accept this complaint for investigation and will take no further action in relation to it.

If you wish to continue with your complaint, I can only repeat my advice of 5 November 2010, which was to contact the Scottish Courts Service, or the Court of Session directly, to establish their complaints procedure.

I feel obliged to point out that this is the fourth letter I have sent to you to inform you that the SLCC does not have jurisdiction to investigate this complaint, having previously confirmed this to you during a telephone call on 5 November 2010. Whilst I recognise that persistence can be a positive advantage when pursuing a complaint, your persistent refusal to accept my explanation with regard to what the SLCC can or cannot do is taking up a disproportionate amount of the SLCC's time and resources.

With this in mind, I am aware that you have previously requested all communication regarding this matter to be in writing, however I believe that being able to speak about it via telephone may prove beneficial to both you and the SLCC, and may be the most efficient way of bring resolution to this issue.

If you would like to speak about this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0131 528 5111.

Yours sincerely

Later that afternoon I sent the following email to the International Diabetes Federation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent my last email to you around four weeks ago regarding discrimination against Diabetics, but have not received a reply to my original email dated 5 March 2010, which is listed at the bottom of this email.

Can you let me know when I can expect a reply?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

The last email I sent that day was to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have sent a complaint to the SCS who have stated that as the Auditor of the Court of Session is appointed by the Scottish Ministers, the complaint has to go to the Legal System Division of the Scottish Government, to which I have emailed the complaint.

I find that the SLCC not having jurisdiction to hear this complaint is a disgrace, and I will continue to look into this after I have finished my appeal to a higher court on these expenses and all the related issues.

I know that the auditor of the Court of Session is a solicitor, you, the SLCC, also know that the auditor of the Court of Session is a solicitor. It should matter not a jot whether the auditor of the Court of Session is on the roll, as he is a solicitor.

I will also be raising this as part of my appeal to a higher court, that the 'independent' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission cannot investigate matters concerning the auditor of the Court of Session, and only his employers can investigate such matters, which is not independent.

Perhaps you should also consider changing your name, as you cannot investigate the whole Scottish Legal system?

Mr McAlpine

Chapter 13

It was now 1 December 2010 when I received the following email from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Please find attached information relevant to your complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Dishon

Case Officer

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

Attached document read:

SCOTTISH LEGAL COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

01 December 2010

Our ref: 201001191

Dear Mr McAlpine

Complaint about Mr Kenneth Cumming, Auditor of the Court of Session

Thank you for your e-mail dated 30 November 2010, which I received today.

I am pleased to note that you have raised this matter with the Scottish Court Service and have been advised of the correct complaints procedure.

I can confirm that the SLCC will take no further action in relation to this complaint and the complaint file will be closed.

Yours sincerely

Nick Dishon

Case Officer

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

The next day I sent the Auditor of the Court of Session the following email:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached an objection to the account of expenses regarding your reference 54263.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Attached document read:

OBJECTION TO ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES

Reference: 54263

Incurred by

McGrigors LLP

Agents for the Respondent

In the Application of Kenneth McAlpine

For

Leave to Appeal

Under

Section 37 of The Employment Tribunals Act 1996

Against

A Rule 3(10) Judgement of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The Appellant, Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine, from the first day, has consistently stated what an utter disgrace the initial judgement and subsequent appeals have been, and these subsequent appeals are currently being appealed in a higher Court.

As with the other appeals, this award of expenses will also be appealed to a higher Court, and joined up with the other appeals.

General Objections

1. With reference to  page 12 of this document, the Respondent, as clearly stated in the costs hearing judgement, is "The Employment Appeal Tribunal".

As this was an appeal under Court of Session Rule of Court 41, can the Auditor of the Court of Session state what Rule of Court under the Court of Session Rule of Court 41 entitled the alleged Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) to be represented at any of the hearings, and as a consequence, entitled the alleged Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) to expenses?

If the Auditor of the Court of Session, the Court of Session or the alleged Respondent cannot show what Court of Session Rule of Court 41 entitled the alleged Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) to representation and expenses, the Applicant, Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine, will not be paying the alleged Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) any expenses.

Under The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6, I see this as a fundamental breach of my human right to a fair hearing, as well as a breach of Protocol 1, Article 1, and the peaceful enjoyment of my possessions.

2. The alleged Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) and their Solicitors (McGrigors LLP) sent Sheriff Officers to my home to make enquiries on my ability to pay the Court of Session expenses, even although the Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) and their Solicitors (McGrigors LLP) had no idea of the total expenses at this time.

I have already made the Auditor aware of this dreadful action that took place on 10 September 2010 and subsequent emails (see Appendix,  page 16 of this document). The Respondent could simply have asked me to prove my ability to pay, rather than using Sheriff Officers.

I trust that the Auditor of the Court of Session will take appropriate action under the Court of Session Rule of Court 42.5 to make sure that the alleged Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) and their Solicitors (McGrigors LLP) are punished for this dreadful action, including their total expenses disallowed.

Under The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8, I see this a fundamental breach of my human right to my private and family life, as well as a breach of Protocol 1, Article 1, and the peaceful enjoyment of my possessions.

3. The total of the Account of Expenses as prepared by Ross McGinn, Law Accountants is fundamentally wrong.

In the Account of Expenses (see Appendix, page 16 of this document), the top of the page shows the following sums £2513.60 + £232.95 + £232.95 + £77.70 + £57.60, which equals £3114.80, but the Account of Expenses shows £3224.80.

I, therefore, have no confidence whatsoever that this Account of Expenses, whether in whole or in part, has been prepared correctly.

4. Maureen Hall stated in an email dated 10 September 2010, page 13, that Counsel fees were £2350.00 but Counsel fees as stated in the Account of Expenses are stated as £2650.00?

5. The advocate representing the alleged Respondent, Mr Douglas Fairley, was a fee paid Employment Tribunal judge at the time of representing the alleged Respondent.

As this was an appeal against an Employment Tribunal judgement in the Court of Session, under The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6, I see this as a fundamental breach of my human right to a fair hearing.

6. This appeal was entitled "LEAVE TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL". The appeal was therefore between Mr Kenneth McAlpine and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and it was therefore up to Mr Kenneth McAlpine to convince the Court of Session that leave to appeal should be granted. Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, when they were clearly not a party to the proceedings.

7. The Appellant, Mr Kenneth McAlpine, was representing himself at the Court of Session. The Respondent chose to employ a Solicitor who is a Senior Associate (Maureen Hall) and an Advocate (Douglas Fairley), when a graduate Solicitor and the lowest paid Junior Advocate or Solicitor Advocate would have sufficed.

You don't need champagne when cheap wine will suffice.

8. The alleged Respondent has not followed  Court of Session Rule of Court 42.1.(2).(c) because they sent an alleged account of expenses to Mr McAlpine on  14 October 2010, but did not lodge an alleged account of expenses at the Court of Session until  28 October 2010. The Auditor was made aware of this via email on 26 October 2010 which also included the cover letter from McGrigors stating "In the meantime, should you have any proposals for settlement of the Account, please contact us directly", where the alleged Respondent is trying to bypass the whole Court of Session Rule of Court 42 'account of taxation' process, and the Auditor, and I see this as embezzlement, as the Respondent is trying to get me to settle the account without following the correct process, and without the knowledge of the Auditor.

9. Specific Objections to Account of Expenses

According to Court of Session Rule of Court 42 Part VI "Inner House Business", the alleged Respondent's expenses, as outlined in pages 15 to 16 of this document, are a disgraceful example of grossly inflated expenses, when compared to the expenses outlined in Part VI.

These specific points of objection relate to individual expenses contained within the Account of Expenses (pages 15 to 16 of the appendix):

9.1. 2009, Apr-16 "Instruction Fee"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

9.2. 2009, Apr-22 "Paid Counsel fee for Answers (Voucher 1)"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Advocate/Solicitor Advocate, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

2009, Apr-22 "Paid dues lodging Answers (Ledger A)"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee is agreed.

9.3. 2009, May-29 "Fee for Appellant's Motion for Leave to Appeal – opposed – Engaged 1 hour 6 mins"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

There was absolutely no need for both Counsel and Solicitor to be present at this hearing. You don't pay for two items, when you only use one.

This first hearing lasted only 10 minutes, so Mr McAlpine will only be paying for 10 minutes. The Solicitor could have performed other work on other cases during the 56 minutes waiting for another hearing to conclude.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

2009, May-29 "Paid dues lodging Opposition (Ledger B)"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee is agreed.

2009, May-29 "Paid Counsel fee for attendance at Opposed Motion (Voucher 2)"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

This first hearing lasted only 10 minutes, so Mr McAlpine will only be paying for 10 minutes. Counsel could have performed other work on other cases during the 56 minutes waiting for another hearing to conclude.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Advocate/Solicitor Advocate, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

9.4. 2009, Jun-10 "Fee for Appendix"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

9.5. 2009, Jun-26 "Fee for attendance at continued Opposed Motion – Engaged 10:30am – 1:30pm"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

There was absolutely no need for both Counsel and Solicitor to be present at this hearing. You don't pay for two items, when you only use one.

This second hearing lasted 1 hour 55 minutes, refer to page 14 of this document, so Mr McAlpine will only be paying for 1 hour 55 minutes. The Solicitor could have performed other work on other cases during the 65 minutes waiting for another hearing to conclude.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

2009, Jun-26 "Paid Counsel fee for Opposed Motion – restricted (Voucher 3)"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

This second hearing lasted 1 hour 55 minutes, refer to page 14 of this document, so Mr McAlpine will only be paying for 1 hour 55 minutes. Counsel could have performed other work on other cases during the 65 minutes waiting for another hearing to conclude.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Advocate/Solicitor Advocate, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

2009, Jun-26 "Paid Court dues of Hearing (Ledger C)"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee is agreed.

9.6. 2009, Dec-23 "Incidental Procedure fee – to cover work undertaken in connection with the fixing of a Summer Roll Hearing – restricted"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee is agreed.

2009, Dec-23 "Preparation for Hearing"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

9.7. 2010, Jan-27 "Fee for attendance at Hearing – Engaged 10:00am – 3:15pm"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

There was absolutely no need for both Counsel and Solicitor to be present at this hearing. You don't pay for two items, when you only use one.

This third hearing lasted 3 hours 35 minutes, so Mr McAlpine will only be paying for 3 hours 35 minutes. There was also a break for lunch, and Mr McAlpine will not be paying for Solicitors time to eat lunch. The Solicitor could also have performed other work on other cases during the 'discrepancies' in time, as the Solicitor was not engaged in work for 5 hours 15 minutes.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

2010, Jan-27 "Paid Counsel fee for Hearing (Voucher 4)"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

This third hearing lasted 3 hours 35 minutes, so Mr McAlpine will only be paying for 3 hours 35 minutes. There was also a break for lunch, and Mr McAlpine will not be paying for Counsels time to eat lunch. Counsel could also have performed other work on other cases during the 'discrepancies' in time, as Counsel was not engaged in work for 5 hours 15 minutes.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Advocate/Solicitor Advocate, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

2010, Jan-27 "Paid Court dues (Ledger D)".

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee is agreed.

9.8. 2010, Feb-12 "Fee for Advising"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

9.9. 2010, Jul-01 "Fee for Respondent's Motion for expenses – opposed"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

2010, Jul-01 "Paid dues of Motion (Ledger E)"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee is agreed.

2010, Jul-01 "Paid Counsel fee for attendance at Opposed Motion (Voucher 5)"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Advocate/Solicitor Advocate, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

9.10. 2010, Oct-08 "Fee for Account of Expenses"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

2010, Oct-08 "Paid dues lodging Account for taxation if required"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee is agreed.

2010, Oct-08 "Preparation for taxation to include considering points of Objection"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

2010, Oct-08 "Fee for attendance at Taxation – estimated at 30 mins"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

2010, Oct-08 "Paid Fee Fund dues"

No expense shown, no expense due.

2010, Oct-08 "Fee ordering and obtaining Extract Decree"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee is agreed.

Mr McAlpine will expect the Auditor of the Court of Session to address all of the points raised in this objection in the subsequent report of the taxation of the account of expenses.

The next day I received the following email from the law firm McGrigors:

Mr McAlpine

I refer to my letter to you dated 25 November 2010 regarding the diet of taxation due to take place on 9 December 2010.

I write to inform you that the diet has been postponed.

I will contact you with the rearranged date once this is confirmed by the Auditor of Court.

Regards

Euan

Later that day I sent another email to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

I have received the email below from the Respondent stating that the diet of taxation has been postponed, your reference 54263.

I have already sent the Respondent my objections to the account of expenses, and the Respondent will have much more time than 4 days to review and prepare answers raised in the objection.

Can you confirm that this diet of taxation is cancelled?

Can you confirm the date this diet was cancelled?

Can you also confirm the reason why this diet of taxation is postponed?

Mr McAlpine

Three days later I received the following email from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I can confirm that the diet fixed for the 9th of December has been postponed.

A request was received from the receiving party on the 2nd of December.

It is the policy of this office to allow the receiving party to postpone a diet as long as sufficient notice is given to the paying party.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

Later that afternoon I sent an email reply back to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your last email.

I am utterly astonished that the auditor can just postpone a diet at the whim of the receiving party, especially when the paying party has sent the receiving party their objections to the account of expenses, especially when the receiving party now has an undisclosed time to consider the objections instead of the 4 working days outlined in the Court of Session Rule of Court 42.2.(1A).

Can you state which Court of Session Rule of Court the auditor relies on to postpone this diet of taxation, or is it just a whim?

Mr K McAlpine

The next day I sent the following email to the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can you provide your reason for postponing the diet of taxation scheduled for 9 December 2010?

Mr McAlpine

Later that day I sent another email to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have not received a reply to my last email.

Can you answer the following questions:

1: What was the stated reason by the receiving party for postponing the diet of taxation scheduled for 9 December 2010?

2: Can you state which Court of Session Rule of Court the auditor relies on to postpone this diet of taxation, or is it just a whim?

3: As there is an increase in the VAT rate from 17.5% to 20% due in the new year, can you confirm that the paying party will not be subjected to the VAT increased rate since the diet of taxation was originally scheduled for 9 December 2010?

Mr McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from the law firm McGrigors:

Mr McAlpine

The diet was postponed because the law accountant who prepared the Account of Expenses was not available to appear before the Auditor of Court on this date.

Regards

Paul

Paul Deans

Trainee

Later that day I received the following email from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

1. The receiving party advised that their law accountant was not available to attend the diet of taxation scheduled for 9th December.

2. As previously stated, the Auditor will allow a receiving party to postpone a diet as long as sufficient notice is given to the paying party. If a receiving party does not wish his account to be taxed as a particular time, the Auditor self evidently cannot simply go ahead and tax it.

3. This is something you will require to raise with the Auditor as the diet of taxation.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

The last email I sent that day was to the Legal System Division of the Scottish Court Service:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can you give me an update on my last email sent 12 days ago, as I have received no update at all.

Mr McAlpine

On 9 December 2010 I sent a completed application for a case against the award of costs to the European Court of Human Rights. I made the European Court of Human Rights aware that I already had a case lodged at the Court regarding disability discrimination, and asked whether this case could be joined with the disability discrimination case.

Around 18 December 2010 I received the following letter from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

AUDITOR OF THE COURT OF SESSION

Parliament House, Edinburgh, EH1 1RQ

NOTICE OF DIET OF TAXATION

TO: KENNETH MCALPINE ESQ

Date: 16 December 2010

Our Ref: 54263

Your Ref:

Case: KENNETH MCALPINE APPEAL ORACLE CORPORATION UK LTD

A diet of taxation in this case will take place in the Auditor's Chambers, 120 The Cowgate, Edinburgh, EH1 1JN.

On: 20 January 2011 at 11.45 a.m. Any queries with regard to this taxation should be made to Mrs. Wilcher.

Frances Delaney (Ms)

Principal Clerk

Intimation of the diet of taxation is being made to:

MCGRIGORS: KENNETH MCALPINE ESQ

1. Intimation of Diet

Intimation of the above diet is being given by the Auditor to the Solicitors, who appear, from the Court Process, to be representing the paying party, which failing to the paying party. If the party presenting the Account knows of any change in representation, or change of address, of the paying party, the Auditor's Office should be informed of that immediately. The Solicitors presenting the Account should also take appropriate steps to inform the paying party of the date, time and place of the diet of taxation. If the Auditor is not satisfied with the steps taken to give intimation of the diet, he may adjourn the taxation to another date.

2. Objection to Account

If the party from whom payment is sought wishes to object to any items in the Account that party is required to lodge a written note of the specific points of objection to it NOT LATER THAN 4PM ON THE FOURTH BUSINESS DAY BEFORE THE DIET OF TAXATION [R.C. 42.2.1A] and is also required to attend, or be represented at, the diet to speak in support of the objections.

PLEASE NOTE THAT NO FURTHER REMINDER REGARDING NOTE 2 WILL BE ISSUED FROM THIS OFFICE.

3. Withdrawal of Account

Should the party who has presented the Account no longer require it to be taxed, that party must notify the Auditor forthwith to that effect.

On 20 December 2010 I received the following email from the law firm McGrigors:

Mr McAlpine

I write to inform you that the Diet of Taxation for the above matter has been rearranged for 11:45 am on 20 January 2011 in the Auditor's Chambers, 120 The Cowgate, Edinburgh, EH1 1JN.

Regards

Paul

Paul Deans

Trainee

Around 23 December 2010 I received the following letter from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

21 December 2010

Our ref: 201000571

Dear Mr McAlpine

Complaint about Mr Euan Smith, Miss Maureen Hall and Mr Alan Nicholson, of McGrigors LLP MNP

I write to advise that your complaint has been passed to me as Clerk to the Board of Commissioners. The next stage is for the complaint to be forwarded to one of our Commissioners who will make a determination as to whether the complaint is eligible to be admitted to our investigation process in terms of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.

I write at this time simply to advise that the complaint will be issued to a Member shortly for consideration however, as this office is closed between 25th December and 4th January 2011, the SLCC will not be in a position to revert to you in relation to the outcome of this further procedure until early in the New Year.

I will of course let you know as soon as there has been a decision made on the complaint.

Yours sincerely

Anne Lazaro

Clerk to the Board of Commissioners

It was now 2011, and on 14 January 2011 I received the following email from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission:

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission

The Stamp Office

10 - 14 Waterloo Place

Edinburgh, EH1 3EG

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

14 January 2011

Our ref: 201000571

Dear Mr McAlpine

Complaint about Mr Euan Smith, Miss Maureen Hall and Mr Alan Nicholson, of McGrigors LLP MNP

When the SLCC receives a complaint it has to assess the "eligibility" of that complaint against a number of criteria. In other words, the SLCC has to make a decision about whether or not it can be accepted for investigation. Your complaint, as set out below, has been considered carefully by the SLCC and it has been decided it will not be investigated.

The criteria for assessment include whether or not the complaint has been made within time limits. Another assessment the SLCC must, by law, make is whether in its view the complaint is "frivolous, vexatious or totally without merit". These words are not of the SLCC's making but are contained within the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 (the Act).

What you complained about

Issue 1

McGrigors had failed to contact me regarding the amount of the award of expenses made against me, as of 8 September 2010. However, Sheriff Officers were instructed by McGrigors and were present on my street, making enquiries of my neighbours, on 8 September 2010.

Issue 2

I received a letter from Mr Euan Smith on 14 October 2010 which included an account of expenses and stated "we will proceed to lodge no later than the 1 November 2010 the Account with the court for taxation". This is clearly in violation of Chapter 42, Rule 42.1.(2), which states that an account of expenses has to be lodged with the Court before a copy is sent to the paying party.

Our decision

Section 2(4) of the Act, provides that the SLCC should reject a complaint which it considers to be `frivolous, vexatious or totally without merit'. As explained above, the terms 'frivolous', 'vexatious' and 'totally without merit' are contained in the Act. These terms are not defined by the Act but examples of what they could mean are given below. This is not an exhaustive list. Examples:

* A "Frivolous" complaint could be one with little merit or of a very trivial nature, where to investigate would be out of all proportion to the seriousness of the issues complained about, or where the outcome is unlikely to be different.

* A "Vexatious" complaint could be one made with the intention of causing annoyance or trouble for the person complained about.

* A "Totally without merit" complaint could be one that would not be upheld based on the information the SLCC has seen.

Decision:

The SLCC has considered your complaint carefully. Our view is that Issues 1 & 2 are "totally without merit" under the Act and must be rejected for the reasons set out in the attached document, "Reasons for Decision". The SLCC is not saying that your complaint is unimportant and we can see your strength of feeling about it from your communication with us. However, under the terms of the 2007 Act it is not eligible for investigation.

We appreciate that you will be disappointed with our decision. However, I assure you it was taken carefully and the issues considered thoroughly.

Next steps

The SLCC will not take any further action on your complaint and we have notified the practitioner of this decision as required under section 2(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. If you have any questions about the SLCC or this decision, please contact our Gateway Team on the number above.

If you or any of the parties specified in the Act wish to challenge this decision, you have the right of appeal to the Court of Session as set out in section 21. The appeal must be lodged within 28 days of the date of this letter.

As any appeal would be against a decision made by the SLCC, the SLCC is not in a position to provide you with advice as to the Court of Session appeal process or any related costs. I would suggest that you may wish to consider seeking independent legal advice with regard to this.

Alternatively, the Scottish Court Service may be able to provide you with the information you require. The Scottish Court Service may be contacted in the following ways;

By post:

The Scottish Court Service

Saughton House

Broomhouse Drive

Edinburgh

EH11 3XD

Telephone: 0131 444 3352 or via e-mail at: enquiries@scotcourts.gov.uk

It would be helpful if you would let the SLCC know of any intention to appeal.

Yours sincerely

Anne Lazaro

Clerk to the Board of Commissioners

Enc: Reasons for the decision

Reasons for the Decision

Ref: 201000571

Complainer: Mr Kenneth McAlpine

Practitioners: Mr Euan Smith, Miss Maureen Hall & Mr Alan Nicholson of McGrigors LLP MNP

1. The complaint

I, Kenneth McAlpine, wish to complain about Miss Maureen Hall, Mr Alan Nicholson and Mr Euan Smith, of McGrigors, in relation to their actions in connection with the recovery of an award of expenses made against me. The main point of my complaint is:

1. McGrigors had failed to contact me regarding the amount of the award of expenses made against me, as of 8 September 2010. However, Sheriff Officers were instructed by McGrigors and were present on my street, making enquiries of my neighbours, on 8 September 2010.

2. I received a letter from Mr Euan Smith on 14 October 2010 which included an account of expenses and stated "we will proceed to lodge no later than the 1 November 2010 the Account with the court for taxation". This is clearly in violation of Chapter 42, Rule 42.1.(2), which states that an account of expenses has to be lodged with the Court before a copy is sent to the paying party.

2. Background

2.1 The complainer, Mr Kenneth McAlpine, was previously employed by Oracle, but was made redundant in June 2006. Mr McAlpine took his former employers to a Tribunal claiming unfair dismissal, but the Tribunal rejected his claim (decision registered 13 September 2007). The complainer exercised his right of appeal, which was refused by a judge, in chambers, on 18 August 2008. The complainer then sought a hearing on the matter, held on 28 August 2008, during which the judge confirmed that no further action would be taken on the notice of appeal.

2.2 Mr McAlpine then applied to the Court of Session for leave to appeal against the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but this was refused on all grounds (decision registered on 12 February 2010). A motion for expenses arising from this action was made to the Court of Session by McGrigors and was opposed by Mr McAlpine. The motion was granted on 1 July 2010.

2.3 The information held on file by the SLCC indicates that McGrigors represented Oracle during the Tribunal proceedings and the Court of Session action.

2.4 This Report does not refer specifically to all material taken into account by the SLCC. It concentrates on evidence directly relevant to the issues previously agreed with the complainer.

2.5 Article 3 of the Conduct Standards states that solicitors must act in the best interests of their own clients. This duty is reiterated in Article 2 of the Service Standards. This means that the primary duty of care owed by solicitors is to their own clients. Mr McAlpine was not a client of McGrigors and the firm was not, therefore, providing him with a service. The SLCC can investigate complaints of inadequate professional service raised by a person who is not a client of the firm (i.e. a third party) if they allege that they have been directly affected by the inadequate professional service provided to the firm's client. In this particular case the SLCC can, therefore, only consider whether the complaint could amount to conduct and/or whether the service provided by McGrigors to their client was inadequate and, if so, whether this failure directly affected Mr McAlpine to his detriment.

3. Issues of your complaint

3.1 Issue 1: McGrigors had failed to contact me regarding the amount of the award of expenses made against me, as of 8 September 2010. However, Sheriff Officers were instructed by McGrigors and were present on my street, making enquiries of my neighbours, on 8 September 2010.

3.2 There is an e-mail on file from Ms Maureen Hall, of McGrigors, dated 14 January 2010 and sent to the complainer. This e-mail refers to the award of costs in favour of the firm's client, Oracle, relating to employment tribunal proceedings and amounting to £3,700, and states that the amount "remains unpaid". Ms Hall states that "although no formal steps have yet been taken by my clients to enforce this award, I have now been instructed to take such steps against you" and adds that the amount of this award "remains an outstanding debt which you require to meet, irrespective of the outcome of the current proceedings". The proceedings referred to in this e-mail are those relating to the complainer's application to the Court of Session.

3.3 Ms Hall's letter ends by offering an opportunity for the complainer to meet the outstanding costs before the award is enforced through formal action, requesting his proposals for settling the outstanding amount and adding that "I would ask you to let me have your proposals within the next seven days, failing which I will begin the process of instructing sheriff officers in a recovery process".

3.4 The complainer has not provided the SLCC with a copy of his reply to this e-mail and the next correspondence he appears to have had with the firm, according to what is held on file by the SLCC, took place in September 2010. The complainer sent an e-mail to the firm on 10 September 2010 requesting that the firm confirm whether they had instructed sheriff officers who were present on his street on 8 September 2010. Ms Hall replied to the complainer's e-mail the same day and confirmed that McGrigors had instructed a firm of sheriff officers to make initial enquiries "as part of preliminary procedures before taking steps to enforce the various awards of expenses against you".

3.5 Ms Hall also used this e-mail to again request that Mr McAlpine provide his proposals for settling the outstanding amount to avoid the firm having to instruct "further enforcement action". As well as the £3,700 relating to employment tribunal proceedings, Ms Hall mentions the "expenses of the Court of Session hearing", stating that although the firm "have not yet had our fess drawn up as a formal account" their "outlays for counsel's fees are £2,350 plus VAT".

3.6 Mr McAlpine replied to this e-mail on the same day, stating that "the Court of Session referred the award of expenses to the Auditor of Taxation, who must produce a report of the expenses that the Auditor of Taxation believes to be fair". The complainer continues by adding that as the Auditor of Taxation had not produced a report at this stage, the firm have "no right whatsoever to be 'enforcing' an award of expenses which the Auditor of Taxation has not even decided on yet". Mr McAlpine concluded by indicating the firm "will also be aware that all proceedings are still under appeal".

3.7 Ms Hall replied to this e-mail on the same day stating that the firm would be lodging their account for taxation in due course, but also highlighted that there remained an "outstanding and unpaid award of £3,700 against you" adding that "it is reasonable to make enquiries as to your ability to pay at this stage". Ms Hall also noted that the firm were unaware of any further appeal in relation to the matter at that time.

3.8 In this issue, Mr McAlpine states that the firm had failed to contact him regarding the award of expenses as at 8 September 2010. However, it is clear from the information held on file by the SLCC, provided by the complainer that, while the firm did not know the amount relating to the Court of Session action at this time, they had made him aware of the outstanding sum due in relation to the original Tribunal and appeal as early as January 2010, 8 months before the firm instructed sheriff officers.

3.9 The firm also informed Mr McAlpine that the award of £3,700 was a separate matter from that which was raised in the Court of Session action. Having advised the complainer in January 2010 that, if he failed to pay the sum due, the instruction of sheriff officers was a possibility, McGrigors were entitled to proceed with this course of action when the complainer had failed to pay 8 months later. Although the complainer may have been unhappy with the conduct of the sheriff officers, this is not a matter for the SLCC.

3.10 It is considered that this issue would not amount to Professional Misconduct, Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct, or Inadequate Professional Service to the firm's client. Therefore, this issue is rejected as being totally without merit.

3.11 Issue 2: / received a letter from Mr Euan Smith on 14 October 2010 which included an account of expenses and stated "we will proceed to lodge no later than the 1 November 2010 the Account with the court for taxation". This is clearly in violation of Chapter 42, Rule 42.1(2), which states that an account of expenses has to be lodged with the Court before a copy is sent to the paying party.

3.12 Rule 42.1(2) of the Rules of the Court of Session states that:

Any party found entitled to expenses shall-

(a) lodge an account of expenses in process not later than four months after the final interlocutor in which a finding in respect of expenses is made;

(b) if he has failed to comply with sub-paragraph (a), lodge such account a, any time with leave of the court but subject to such conditions (if any) the court thinks fit to impose; and

(c) on lodging an account under sub-paragraph (a) or (b), intimate a copy of it forthwith to the party found liable to pay those expenses.

3.13 As McGrigors motion for expenses was granted in the Court of Session on 1 July 2010, the firm would be acting in adherence to Rule 42.1(2)(a) if they lodged their account with the Court for taxation on, or prior to, 1 November 2010, as they informed Mr McAlpine they would in their letter of 14 October 2010, as this would be within 4 months of the final interlocutor date.

3.14 Rule 42.1(2)(c) required the firm to send a copy of their account to Mr McAlpine without delay once they had submitted it to the Auditor of the Court of Session. However, the Rules do not state that it is prohibited for the firm to have sent Mr McAlpine a copy prior to submitting the account to the Auditor.

3.15 Mr McAlpine states in his second complaint form, received by the SLCC on 1 November 2010, that he believes sending the account of expenses to him prior to submitting it to the Auditor was "an attempt to possibly embezzle more expenses by bypassing the diet of taxation process". However, the submission of the account of expenses to Mr McAlpine did not place any burden on him to pay this immediately and the firm's letter was clear in that they would be submitting the account to the Auditor in due course. It could further be considered that the submission of the account by the firm to the complainer at the earliest possible date would be in his favour, as it would provide him with-a-longer-period of time-in-which-to-review-the-account prior to-the-Diet of Taxation,-

3.16 It is considered that this issue would not amount to Professional Misconduct, Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct, or Inadequate Professional Service to the firm's client. Therefore, this issue is rejected as being totally without merit.

4. Decision

4.1 The SLCC therefore finds that Issues 1 & 2 of the complaint are not frivolous nor vexatious but should be deemed to be totally without merit for the foregoing reasons and rejected under the terms of section 2(4)(b) of the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.

Chapter 14

On 17 January 2011 I received the following email from the AIRE Centre, a specialist charity to promote awareness of European law rights and assist marginalised individuals:

Dear Mr Alpine,

Thank you for the further information given and for the ECtHR's letter attached. We apologise for the delay in reverting to you.

With regards to your questions:

5. The admissibility of your application has not been considered yet by the ECtHR despite being submitted at the end of 2008. When the Court examines your application it will write to you setting out whether the case is admissible or not.

6. The term "examine" in this context means to decide upon the admissibility of the complaint.

7. At this stage, we do not consider that there is anything further which can be put to the Court to increase the chances of your application being declared admissible.

I hope that I have addressed your concerns.

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Lucille

Shortly after receiving this email, I received another email from the AIRE Centre:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Further to my previous email I want to inform you that you case has been reassigned to a new caseworker, Chiara Pernechele. This is due to the fact that I am leaving the AIRE Centre this Friday. If you need any further information about your case please contact Chiara at caseworker6@airecentre.org.

Best regards

Lucille

Three days later I attended the diet of taxation meeting at the Auditor of the Court of Session in Edinburgh:

This meeting lasted 30 minutes, I barely spoke, two lawyers from McGrigors, one seemed to be from Manchester.

This was the objection to the account of expenses I lodged with the auditor of the Court of Session and it is very similar to the account of expenses in the last chapter:

OBJECTION TO ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES

Reference: 54263

Incurred by

McGrigors LLP

Agents for the Respondent

In the Application of Kenneth McAlpine

For

Leave to Appeal

Under

Section 37 of The Employment Tribunals Act 1996

Against

A Rule 3(10) Judgement of the Employment Appeal Tribunal

The Appellant, Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine, from the first day, has consistently stated what an utter disgrace the initial judgement and subsequent appeals have been, and these subsequent appeals are currently being appealed in a higher Court.

As with the other appeals, this award of expenses will also be appealed to a higher Court, and joined up with the other appeals.

General Objections

1. With reference to  page 12 of this document, the Respondent, as clearly stated in the costs hearing judgement, is "The Employment Appeal Tribunal".

As this was an appeal under Court of Session Rule of Court 41, can the Auditor of the Court of Session state what Rule of Court under the Court of Session Rule of Court 41 entitled the alleged Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) to be represented at any of the hearings, and as a consequence, entitled the alleged Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) to expenses?

If the Auditor of the Court of Session, the Court of Session or the alleged Respondent cannot show what Court of Session Rule of Court 41 entitled the alleged Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) to representation and expenses, the Applicant, Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine, will not be paying the alleged Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) any expenses.

Under The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6, I see this as a fundamental breach of my human right to a fair hearing, as well as a breach of Protocol 1, Article 1, and the peaceful enjoyment of my possessions.

2. The alleged Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) and their Solicitors (McGrigors LLP) sent Sheriff Officers to my home to make enquiries on my ability to pay the Court of Session expenses, even although the Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) and their Solicitors (McGrigors LLP) had no idea of the total expenses at this time.

I have already made the Auditor aware of this dreadful action that took place on 10 September 2010 and subsequent emails (see Appendix,  page 16 of this document). The Respondent could simply have asked me to prove my ability to pay, rather than using Sheriff Officers.

I trust that the Auditor of the Court of Session will take appropriate action under the Court of Session Rule of Court 42.5 to make sure that the alleged Respondent (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) and their Solicitors (McGrigors LLP) are punished for this dreadful action, including their total expenses disallowed.

Under The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8, I see this a fundamental breach of my human right to my private and family life, as well as a breach of Protocol 1, Article 1, and the peaceful enjoyment of my possessions.

3. The total of the Account of Expenses as prepared by Ross McGinn, Law Accountants is fundamentally wrong.

In the Account of Expenses (see Appendix, page 16 of this document), the top of the page shows the following sums £2513.60 + £232.95 + £232.95 + £77.70 + £57.60, which equals £3114.80, but the Account of Expenses shows £3224.80.

I, therefore, have no confidence whatsoever that this Account of Expenses, whether in whole or in part, has been prepared correctly.

4. Maureen Hall stated in an email dated 10 September 2010, page 13, that Counsel fees were £2350.00 but Counsel fees as stated in the Account of Expenses are stated as £2650.00?

5. The advocate representing the alleged Respondent, Mr Douglas Fairley, was a fee paid Employment Tribunal judge at the time of representing the alleged Respondent.

As this was an appeal against an Employment Tribunal judgement in the Court of Session, under The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6, I see this as a fundamental breach of my human right to a fair hearing.

6. This appeal was entitled "LEAVE TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL". The appeal was therefore between Mr Kenneth McAlpine and the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and it was therefore up to Mr Kenneth McAlpine to convince the Court of Session that leave to appeal should be granted. Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, when they were clearly not a party to the proceedings.

7. The Appellant, Mr Kenneth McAlpine, was representing himself at the Court of Session. The Respondent chose to employ a Solicitor who is a Senior Associate (Maureen Hall) and an Advocate (Douglas Fairley), when a graduate Solicitor and the lowest paid Junior Advocate or Solicitor Advocate would have sufficed.

You don't need champagne when cheap wine will suffice.

8. The alleged Respondent has not followed Court of Session Rule of Court 42.1.(2).(c) because they sent an alleged account of expenses to Mr McAlpine on 14 October 2010, but did not lodge an alleged account of expenses at the Court of Session until 28 October 2010. The Auditor was made aware of this via email on 26 October 2010 which also included the cover letter from McGrigors stating "In the meantime, should you have any proposals for settlement of the Account, please contact us directly", where the alleged Respondent is trying to bypass the whole Court of Session Rule of Court 42 'account of taxation' process, and the Auditor, and I see this as embezzlement, as the Respondent is trying to get me to settle the account without following the correct process, and without the knowledge of the Auditor.

9. Specific Objections to Account of Expenses

According to Court of Session Rule of Court 42 Part VI "Inner House Business", the alleged Respondent's expenses, as outlined in pages 15 to 16 of this document, are a disgraceful example of grossly inflated expenses, when compared to the expenses outlined in Part VI.

These specific points of objection relate to individual expenses contained within the Account of Expenses (pages 15 to 16 of the appendix):

* 2009, Apr-16 "Instruction Fee"

* 2009, Jun-10 "Fee for Appendix"

* 2009, Dec-23 "Preparation for Hearing"

* 2010, Feb-12 "Fee for Advising"

* 2010, Jul-01 "Fee for Respondent's Motion for expenses – opposed"

* 2010, Oct-08 "Fee for Account of Expenses"

* 2010, Oct-08 "Preparation for taxation to include considering points of Objection"

* 2010, Oct-08 "Fee for attendance at Taxation – estimated at 30 mins"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

* 2009, Apr-22 "Paid Counsel fee for Answers (Voucher 1)"

* 2010, Jul-01 "Paid Counsel fee for attendance at Opposed Motion (Voucher 5)"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Advocate/Solicitor Advocate, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

* 2009, Apr-22 "Paid dues lodging Answers (Ledger A)"

* 2009, May-29 "Paid dues lodging Opposition (Ledger B)"

* 2009, Jun-26 "Paid Court dues of Hearing (Ledger C)"

* 2009, Dec-23 "Incidental Procedure fee – to cover work undertaken in connection with the fixing of a Summer Roll Hearing – restricted"

* 2010, Jan-27 "Paid Court dues (Ledger D)".

* 2010, Jul-01 "Paid dues of Motion (Ledger E)"

* 2010, Oct-08 "Paid dues lodging Account for taxation if required"

* 2010, Oct-08 "Fee ordering and obtaining Extract Decree"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee is agreed.

* 2009, May-29 "Fee for Appellant's Motion for Leave to Appeal – opposed – Engaged 1 hour 6 mins"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

There was absolutely no need for both Counsel and Solicitor to be present at this hearing. You don't pay for two items, when you only use one.

This first hearing lasted only 10 minutes, so Mr McAlpine will only be paying for 10 minutes. The Solicitor could have performed other work on other cases during the 56 minutes waiting for another hearing to conclude.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

* 2009, May-29 "Paid Counsel fee for attendance at Opposed Motion (Voucher 2)"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

This first hearing lasted only 10 minutes, so Mr McAlpine will only be paying for 10 minutes. Counsel could have performed other work on other cases during the 56 minutes waiting for another hearing to conclude.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Advocate/Solicitor Advocate, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

* 2009, Jun-26 "Fee for attendance at continued Opposed Motion – Engaged 10:30am – 1:30pm"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

There was absolutely no need for both Counsel and Solicitor to be present at this hearing. You don't pay for two items, when you only use one.

This second hearing lasted 1 hour 55 minutes, refer to page 14 of this document, so Mr McAlpine will only be paying for 1 hour 55 minutes. The Solicitor could have performed other work on other cases during the 65 minutes waiting for another hearing to conclude.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

* 2009, Jun-26 "Paid Counsel fee for Opposed Motion – restricted (Voucher 3)"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

This second hearing lasted 1 hour 55 minutes, refer to page 14 of this document, so Mr McAlpine will only be paying for 1 hour 55 minutes. Counsel could have performed other work on other cases during the 65 minutes waiting for another hearing to conclude.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Advocate/Solicitor Advocate, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

* 2010, Jan-27 "Fee for attendance at Hearing – Engaged 10:00am – 3:15pm"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

There was absolutely no need for both Counsel and Solicitor to be present at this hearing. You don't pay for two items, when you only use one.

This third hearing lasted 3 hours 35 minutes, so Mr McAlpine will only be paying for 3 hours 35 minutes. There was also a break for lunch, and Mr McAlpine will not be paying for Solicitors time to eat lunch. The Solicitor could also have performed other work on other cases during the 'discrepancies' in time, as the Solicitor was not engaged in work for 5 hours 15 minutes.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Solicitor, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

* 2010, Jan-27 "Paid Counsel fee for Hearing (Voucher 4)"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited chose to be represented, so this expense was their choice, and Mr McAlpine cannot be held responsible for their choice.

This third hearing lasted 3 hours 35 minutes, so Mr McAlpine will only be paying for 3 hours 35 minutes. There was also a break for lunch, and Mr McAlpine will not be paying for Counsels time to eat lunch. Counsel could also have performed other work on other cases during the 'discrepancies' in time, as Counsel was not engaged in work for 5 hours 15 minutes.

If the Auditor deems this expense admissible, then this fee should be recalculated to reflect a lower fee for the cheapest Advocate/Solicitor Advocate, as Mr McAlpine was representing himself.

* 2010, Oct-08 "Paid Fee Fund dues"

No expense shown, no expense due.

Mr McAlpine will expect the Auditor of the Court of Session to address all of the points raised in this objection in the subsequent report of the taxation of the account of expenses.

On 28 January 2011 I received the following letter from the European Court of Human Rights:

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine

ECHR-LE0.1R

PHA/eu

26 January 2011

Application no. 40103/08

Mcalpine v. the United Kingdom

Dear Sir,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 7 December 2010 and accompanying documents, including a further application form.

For administrative reasons, both complaints will be dealt with under the same application number as above.

Yours faithfully,

For the Registrar

Paul Harvey

Legal Secretary

On 25 February 2011 I received the following email from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Return Receipt

Your document: Disability Discrimination

was received by: CRPD-intern OHCHR/UNCHR/UN

at: 02/25/2011 05:54:08 PM

Around 24 March 2011 I received the following letter from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Auditor of the Court of Session

Your Ref:

Our Ref: 54263

KENNETH MCALPINE ESQ

22 March 2011

Parliament House

Edinburgh EH1 1RQ

Dear Sir,

KENNETH MCALPINE APPEAL ORACLE CORPORATION UK LTD

The taxed Account of Expenses together with the Auditor's Report of today's date is now available for perusal in the Petition Department. If you wish to see the taxed Account, please request the Receiving Party to exhibit it to you without delay.

Yours faithfully,

Frances Delaney (Ms)

Principal Clerk

The Auditor

Kenneth M. Cumming, W.S.

Principal Clerk

Mrs Sheila Muir

On 1 April 2011 I sent the following email to the lawyer Paul Deans from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have received a letter from the Auditor of the Court of Session explaining that I should request you to exhibit the taxed Account to me without delay.

The letter from the Auditor was dated 22 March 2011.

I trust that you will be exhibiting the taxed Account to me without delay.

Mr McAlpine

Four days later I received the following letter from the European Court of Human Rights:

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine

ECHR-LE11.00R (CD 1)

CO/eu

29 March 2011

Application no. 40103/08

Mcalpine v. the United Kingdom

Dear Sir,

I write to inform you that on 22 March 2011 the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in a single-judge formation (V.A. de Gaetano), decided to declare inadmissible your application lodged on 12 August 2008 and registered under the above-mentioned number. The Court found that the requirements of the Convention had not been met.

In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of were within its competence, the Court found that they did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

This decision is final and not subject to any appeal to either the Court, including its Grand Chamber, or any other body. You will therefore appreciate that the Registry will be unable to provide any further details about the single judge's deliberations or to conduct further correspondence relating to its decision in this case. You will receive no further documents from the Court concerning this case and, in accordance with the Court's instructions, the file will be destroyed one year after the date of the decision.

The present communication is made pursuant to Rule 52A of the Rules of Court.

Yours faithfully,

For the Court

Clare Ovey

Head of Division

Later that morning I sent the following email to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I received a letter dated 22 March 2011 from your Office.

In your letter you stated that documents were available for my perusal in the Petition Department.

I have written to the Receiving Party requesting a copy of the taxed account, but have receive nothing.

As the Paying Party I find it utterly ridiculous, in fact ludicrous, that I, as the Paying Party, have not been notified at all of how much I have to pay.

Can you explain how I find out what is in the Auditors report and how much I have to pay?

Mr McAlpine

That same morning I sent the following email to the AIRE Centre:

Dear Chiara,

I have received the following communication, attached, from The European Court of Human Rights this morning.

I find the decision by a single judge utterly unacceptable, as this concerns the rights of some 245 million diabetics worldwide not to be discriminated against due to their disability.

I trust that you can advise on the next steps available to take this case further.

Mr McAlpine

I also sent the following email to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Victoria,

I have received the following communication, attached, from The European Court of Human Rights this morning.

I find the decision by a single judge utterly unacceptable, as this concerns the rights of some 245 million diabetics worldwide not to be discriminated against due to their disability.

I trust that you can now advise me on the next steps available to take this forward to the UN CRPD Committee.

I look forward to your reply.

Mr McAlpine

Later that day I sent another email to the AIRE Centre, a specialist charity to promote awareness of European law rights and assist marginalised individuals:

Dear Chiara,

I have looked into the ECHR Judge "V. De Gaetano" further, and have found the following:

V. De Gaetano represents Malta.

Malta is part of the United Kingdom Commonwealth Countries.

This is utterly unacceptable, as it could be a real perception that the United Kingdom (the High Contracting Party in my case) could put undue influence and pressure on Malta (Judge V. De Gaetano) to reach a decision that suits the United Kingdom.

Why was this decision taken by V. De Gaetano, when there are some eight other Judges in the Section (IV) who are not part of the United Kingdom Commonwealth Countries?

Mr McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from the AIRE Centre:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your email. I will contact you shortly and advise you about the possible next steps you can take.

If you have any further questions in the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Iqvinder

I then sent the following email to the lawyer Euan Smith from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can someone deal with this?

Mr K McAlpine

I immediately received the following automated email reply from the lawyer Euan Smith:

I will be engaged in meetings during the afternoon of Wednesday 6 April with very limited access to e-mail. If you have an urgent query please contact Avril Orr (0131 777 7012).

The last email I received that day was from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

As stated in Rule of Court 42.3.(2), it is the responsibility of the receiving party to exhibit the taxed account or send a copy of it, to the party found liable to pay the expenses. Alternatively, the Auditor's report is available to peruse in the court process.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

The last email I sent that day was to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have contacted various people at McGrigors, but have not received any reply. Can you contact McGrigors and remind them that they have to exhibit the taxed account or send a copy of it to me asap. Otherwise, how is the paying party meant to know how much to pay, guess?

I have no intention of travelling a round trip of 5 hours to peruse a report when it can be emailed to me in seconds. Please email it asap.

Mr McAlpine

The next day I received the following email reply from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

As already advised, intimation of the taxed account is a matter for the receiving party. The Auditor has no jurisdiction to do anything further at this stage.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please tell me when and how I will be informed of how much I have to pay?

I would like to pay this as soon as possible, as McGrigors have a history of sending Sheriff Officers to recover unknown costs.

Mr McAlpine

About an hour later I received the following email from the lawyer Michael Cooper from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your recent emails to Paul Deans and Euan Smith. Paul has moved departments and I will be dealing with this matter in his absence.

We have now received the Account from the Auditor's Office and I attach a copy for your records. You will note that you owe Oracle Corporation £6,968.25. I look forward to receiving payment for this sum in due course.

Regards

Michael

Michael Cooper

Trainee Solicitor

Later that day I sent the following email to the lawyer Michael Cooper from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have looked through the information that you have sent me, and have a question:

On the page entitled "IN THE COURT OF SESSION", it states in handwriting that I was notified of Oracle UK VAT Number on 14 October 2010. I have checked the documentation that I received from McGrigors on 14 October 2010, and the Oracle UK VAT Number is not present in any of the pages.

Mr McAlpine

I also sent another email to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have now received intimation of the taxed account from McGrigors.

Can you confirm that the amount I have to pay, £6,968.25, is the correct amount according to the Auditor.

I was also promised in front of two Solicitors and three witnesses, that the Auditor of the Court of Session would provide a report on some questions and points of law that I raised at the meeting, but I have received no such report. When can I expect the report from the Auditor?

Mr McAlpine

The next morning I sent the following email to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Stefan,

I wrote to you and Victoria Lee a few months ago regarding an application to the ECHR which concerned the rights of some 245 million Diabetics not to be discriminated against due to their disability. If you remember, my ex-employer dismissed me because I was Diabetic, and that my Diabetes would result in future sickness absence. All this is in writing in emails supplied by my ex-employer.

The ECHR has written to me a couple of days ago, stating that there has been no violations of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

I now wish to take this to the UN CRPD Committee.

Can your organisation help with taking this to the UN CRPD Committee, or should I do this myself?

Kenneth McAlpine

Later that day I received the following email from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

£6,968.25 is indeed the amount at which the Auditor taxed the Respondent's account.

The Auditor will normally only append an explanatory note to his report when an important or complex issue has been debated at a diet of taxation and the reasons for his decision or decisions cannot readily be identified from the points of objection and/or what was said at the diet.

The Auditor considered that, in this case, the reasons for his decisions were easily identifiable from what was said at the diet.

If, however, you require further clarification, the Auditor is prepared to issue a brief note to both parties.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

The next day I received an email reply from the International Disability Alliance that read:

Dear Kenneth,

Thanks for your mail and for sharing this information about your case before the European Court.

I can imagine there could be several reasons why your case was found inadmissible by the Court, perhaps the primary reason is that the European Convention on Human Rights does not protect the right to work. While it does protect against discrimination, this is only with respect to one of the rights provided in the Convention, and unfortunately the right to work does not figure amongst them. Other states have accepted Protocol no 12 to the Convention which allows individuals to bring claims alleging discrimination in relation to any right set forth in the law (national law), but the UK has not yet accepted this instrument.

Regarding bringing your case under the Optional Protocol to the CRPD there seems to be a major concern which I had overlooked which would deem your petition inadmissible. The UK only ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabiliites and its Optional Protocol allowing complaints on 10 November 2009. One of the rules for admissibility of complaints under this OP is that the facts leading to the violation of rights must have taken place after the entry into force of the OP in the country. As your dismissal took place prior to 2009, it would be outright inadmissible.

And there is no other UN treaty body which could examine your complaint, the body which has mandate over the right to work- the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does not yet have a complaints mechanism in force.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I would recommend you to continue seeking how you can possibly find a remedy within the UK, you could contact one of the organisations listed at this link for advice on that http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/using-your-human-rights/legal-information-and-advice-organisations/

Kind regards,

Victoria

Two days later I received the following email from the lawyer Michael Cooper from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Mr McAlpine

The statement beginning "Intimated by McGrigors LLP" refers to the intimation of the Interlocutor dated 1 July 2010 and the Account of Expenses rather than the VAT number. These documents were intimated to you on 14 October 2010. I attach a copy of the letter for reference. The Auditor's Office requires to know details such as VAT numbers, therefore this would only have been handwritten on the Account when it was lodged.

Regards

Michael

On 15 April 2011 I sent the following email to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Victoria,

Thanks, looks like my only choice now is to make this public.

My application to the ECHR hardly touched on the right to work, it was more the right not to discriminate against Diabetics by stating that they would be sick in the future, which could affect Diabetics rights to do many things in this world.

Perhaps Diabetics in other countries with better judges can bring their own class action lawsuits against the party and country concerned.

Kenneth

Later that day I sent another email to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Victoria,

I am not happy at all, let me explain why:

In your last email below you stated that the CRPD would find my application outright inadmissable regarding the Optional Protocol. The reason for this was as you stated "One of the rules for admissability of complaints under this OP is that the facts leading to the violation of rights must have taken place after the entry into force of the OP in the country".

But you failed to quote the entire paragraph, which reads:

Article 2

The Committee shall consider a communication inadmissible when:

(f) The facts that are the subject of the communication occurred prior to the entry into force of the present Protocol for the State Party concerned unless those facts continued after that date.

It is the "unless those facts continued after that date." that is the most important part of that Article, why, because:

Those facts, for example regarding my discrimination in employment still continue, as I have not regained my employment with Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, or with any employer for that matter. All those facts, including evidence, in the most important part of my claim, disability discrimination, have been through various courts in the UK until approximately July 2010. In other words, my dismissal did take place prior to 2009, but it continues even now, and all the relevant facts and evidence have continued well beyond 10 November 2009 (and were joined up with my ECHR appeal first lodged in 2008).

Kenneth

That evening I also sent the following email to the AIRE Centre:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was told by your switchboard on 6 April 2011, to expect a reply to this email within a week. It has now been nine days excluding the weekend, and I have still not received a reply.

When can I expect a reply on what is happening on this very important case?

Mr McAlpine

Later that evening I also sent an email to the European Disability Forum:

Dear Janina,

In Novemeber 2010 you kindly set me up with the Aire Center to represent me at the European Court Of Human Rights (ECHR) if my application was accepted.

On the 5 April 2011 I learned that my application had not been accepted at the ECHR.

Late last year I had also contacted the United Nations (UN) regarding submitting an application under the Convention On Rights Of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD). After a few emails, the UN CRPD passed me to the Office Of High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) who stated that I could submit a communication (petition) only when my application to the ECHR was finished.

As it is now finished (not accepted), can you provide help with any organisation who can help draft a communication under the CRPD to lodge with OHCHR, or will I have to do this myself?

This case concerns the rights of 245 million Diabetics not to be discriminated against on disability.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Kenneth,

Unfortunately, your case does not fall into the category of a continuing violation. A continuing violation must originate from the same facts, while you may have been discriminated against by Oracle by your dismissal, their action is not the reason for which you continue to be discriminated against.

An example of a continuing violation would be for example if the State failed to resolve the status of a person who "disappeared" before the date in question or if someone is serving a term of imprisonment following an unfair trial prior to that date. So there is a direct cause and effect.

However, given that there were court decisions relating to your case even after 2009, there is a possibility that your case could be admissible. It will depend very much on what those decisions related to.

Could you please send me all court decisions- both before and after 2009- (scanned) by email?

Thanks in advance,

Victoria

I sent the following letter to the law firm McGrigors

17 April 2011

McGrigors LLP

Princes Exchange

1 Earl Grey Street

Edinburgh EH3 9AQ

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find enclosed a cheque for £6968.25 relating to the Report by the Auditor of the Court of Session published on 22 March 2011, and your email dated 7 April 2011.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

That morning I sent the following email to the International Disability Alliance and attached the Court of Session judgement and the disability discrimination act 1995, part 2, section 3A(5):

Dear Victoria,

Thank you for your last email.

Obviously you have grave doubts about my case being a continuing violation, however, I have none.

Simply put, the cause was Oracle's discrimination of me due to my diabetes, the effect has been continuing discrimination at the hands of Tribunals and Courts, who have laws to protect against such discrimination but are not enforcing these laws. Put another way, if Oracle had not discriminated against me, the effect would not be there in my case.

I have provided all judgments up to 2010, as well as one page stating The Disability Discrimination Act Section 3(A)(5). The Judgments are self explanatory, titles are Tribunal or Court and dates Judgments were issued. I have had to send these to you in three emails due to file sizes.

I doubt you will gain very much from the Judgments, because they bare very little relation to the case and evidence presented, in fact the Court of Session judgment does not even mention Oracle at all, although the Barrister/Advocate was representing Oracle, who were awarded costs at a future hearing.

Throughout these Tribunal and Court hearings there has been common threads, for example The Disability Discrimination Act Section 3(A)(5), which outlaws direct discrimination based on disability, this was raised in the Employment Tribunal Judgment (para 165 and others), the Employment Appeal Tribunal Judgment (para 14) and the Court of Session Judgment (para 9). It was also raised as a point in my ECHR application at page 7 and page 11.

If you require any further continuing violations or common threads, let me know, and I can point out a few more.

Kenneth

I then sent another email to the International Disability Alliance and attached the Employment Appeals Tribunal judgement:

Dear Victoria,
Part 2. I have had to compress this file due to being unable to send due to uncompressed filesize.

Kenneth

I then sent the final email to the International Disability Alliance and attached the Employment Tribunal judgement:

Dear Victoria,
Part 3. I have had to compress this file due to being unable to send due to uncompressed filesize.

Kenneth

That afternoon I sent the following email to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir/Madam,

In your last email you stated "If, however, you require further clarification, the Auditor is prepared to issue a brief note to both parties."

I will leave this matter entirely up to yourself and the Auditor whether you issue a note, or not. From what you have previously stated, the non issue of a note from the Auditor will mean that the Auditor did not consider any points raised to be important, and that the entire diet and taxed account are legal and correct under the Rules of Court.

Mr McAlpine

Later that afternoon I sent the following email to the lawyer Michael Cooper from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Sir,

I have written a cheque for the sum of £6,968.25 made payable to Oracle Corporation UK Ltd. This cheque will be posted on 18 April 2011 signed for, and you should receive it around two to three days after posting.

I will be monitoring my cheque account closely to note the date that this cheque is cashed, and will ask my bank for full details of the transaction.

Can you notify me when you receive this letter and enclosed cheque.

Mr K McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from the AIRE Centre, the specialist charity to promote awareness of European law rights and assist marginalised individuals:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your email. My supervisor is in the process of reviewing the advice. We will send this to you in the next few days.

Regards,

Iqvinder

Later that day I received an email from the lawyer Michael Cooper from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thanks for letting me know. I will confirm when we have received the cheque.

Regards

Michael

Michael Cooper

Trainee Solicitor

Two days later I received the following email from the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Mr McAlpine

As stated in my e mail of 8 April, the Auditor considers that the reasons for his decisions in this case were easily identifiable from what was said at the diet.

Yours sincerely

David Burney

Office of the Auditor of the Court of Session

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Auditor of the Court of Session:

Dear Sir,

You stated "the Auditor considers that the reasons for his decisions in this case were easily identifiable from what was said at the diet."

Nothing of any consequence was said at the diet, apart from me asking for various points raised in my document to be in writing in the report from the Auditor, and the Auditor, in front of witnesses, confirming that the points raised in my document and requested by me to be in writing at the diet, would indeed be in writing in the report from the Auditor.

I have seen no such report from the Auditor.

I will leave this matter entirely up to yourself and the Auditor whether you issue a note/report, or not.

Mr McAlpine

Chapter 15

On 26 April 2011 I received the following email from the law firm McGrigors:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I confirm receipt of your letter dated 17 April 2011 enclosing a cheque in the sum of £6,968.25. I have forwarded the cheque to Oracle Corporation today.

Regards

Michael

Michael Cooper

Trainee Solicitor

The next evening I received an email reply from the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Kenneth,

I understand your sentiment that your case constitutes a continuing violation but this term has a precise meaning within international law.

While I am of the opinion that your case would be found inadmissible, I would not want to prevent you from seeking justice before the CRPD Committee. As you are highly motivated and if you have the time to devote to this, there is nothing to lose in lodging a complaint.

I have attached here a factsheet developed by IDA on how to lodge a complaint to the CRPD Committee which could provide some guidance to you.

If you have some specific questions on how to do this, please don't hesitate to ask.

Kind regards,

Victoria

I also sent the following email to the Aire Centre, a specialist charity whose mission is to promote awareness of European law rights and assist marginalised individuals:

Dear Sir/Madam,

In your last email, dated 18 April 2011, you stated that I should receive advice in the next few days.

I have not received any advice as of 27 April 2011, when can I expect to receive this advice?

Mr McAlpine

The following morning I received an email reply from the Aire Centre:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I apologise for the delay in getting back to you - our response is attached.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Weiss

Attached document read:

28 April 2011

Dear Mr McAlpine

Re: Follow up from Request for Advice, Case No. F.183

We previously advised you in relation to your application to the European Court of Human Rights. You subsequently emailed us on 8 April 2011 with a letter from the European Court of Human Rights informing you that your application had been declared inadmissible.

As stated in the Court's letter, unfortunately you cannot appeal the inadmissibility decision. The European Court rules state that inadmissibility decisions are final and cannot be appealed. If you write to the Court again about this matter, we suspect that they will refuse to correspond with you or declare any new communication from you inadmissible, in accordance with Article 35 § 2(b) of the Convention, as this is a matter that the Court has already considered.

Therefore, we regret to inform you that we cannot do anything further to assist you in your case.

We are sorry that we are unable to assist you.

Yours sincerely,

Adam Weiss

Assistant Director

Later that morning I sent another email to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Victoria,

1) What would be helpful is your 'precise meaning within international law' of what constitutes a continuing violation?

2) Also, as the CRPD is relatively new, have you ever had any experience of lodging a complaint with the CRPD Committee?

3) Whether or not I lodge a complaint with the CRPD Committee, would the IDA publicise this case and the search for justice for Diabetics, as I strongly believe that all Diabetics, and in fact anyone with a disability, should know how employers and Tribunals/Courts agree that disability equals future sickness absences?

The reason why I state 'disability' rather than diabetes is that the law in the UK states that it is direct discrimination if disability is used to make stereotypical assumptions, so the Tribunals/Courts have to rule on whether disability can be used to make stereotypical assumptions.

Kenneth

On 6 May 2011 I received the following email from the European Disability Forum:

Dear Mc Alpine

I have consulted some organizations but couldn't find anyone to proactively take your case. If you're interested in taking your complaint to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, you'll find more info on how to do that in the attachment and the link below. NB! The complaint will only be admissible if the facts of discrimination happened after the UK ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention (07/08/2009)

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/CivilSociety/Pages/Handbook.aspx

Best, janina

Two days later I sent the following email to the European Network on Independent Living, a European network of people with disabilities:

Dear Sir/Madam,

For four years now, I have been fighting a case of disability discrimination through the courts of the United Kingdom.

My case is simple. I showed an email from my old employer which stated that diabetes would result in future sickness absence. I was sacked from my old employer for the potential to have future sickness absence, despite only taking two days sickness absence in the previous two years, the average UK employee takes eight days sickness absence each year.

All the courts in the United Kingdom agreed that this was not discrimination against persons with a disability.

In 2008 I applied to the European Court of Human Rights, and I recently received a letter from the ECHR stating that my application had been rejected.

I now wish to explore whether I can take this case to the UN under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

My question to you is, can you help me in anyway?

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Five days after this email, I sent the following email to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I received this email from you a couple of months ago.

Was the document that you received sent from UN Enable, who I contacted towards the end of 2010?

Can I also ask you why you have received this document, and if there is any actions being taken?

I now wish to lodge a formal communication regarding alleged breaches of the CRPD, I live in the UK, can you provide me with a name and address where this formal communication should be sent?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Later that day I received a reply from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear M. McAlpine,

I don't know which document you are referring to. Could you, please, provide more information on the matter?

About individual communications, you can find all the necessary information on the CRPD webpage at the following address: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/petitions/index.htm

Best regards,

CRPD Secretariat.

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

The document I was referring to was in the email I received from you:

Return Receipt

Your document: Disability Discrimination

was received by: CRPD-intern OHCHR/UNCHR/UN

at: 02/25/2011 05:54:08 PM

So the document is "Disability Discrimination".

I have looked on the website, but it does not tell me who and where to address an individual communication?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

That same day I also received another email reply from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear M. McAlpine,

Here is a copy of the website content for your information on individual communications :

For individual complaints:

Petitions Team

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

United Nations Office at Geneva

1211 Geneva 10 (Switzerland)

Fax: + 41 22 917 9022 (particularly for urgent matters)

E-mail: tb-petitions@ohchr.org

Best regards,

CRPD Secretariat.

Note From The Publisher

Hello, this is Nostaple Limited. Thank you for reading this book. Your support means a lot to us.

No spelling mistakes and grammatical errors have been corrected in any of the emails or letters contained within this book.

You can play a part, in order to help fight discrimination, by spreading the word to any diabetics you may know, that this series of books exist.

If you enjoyed the book and found it interesting and informative, we would appreciate it greatly if you would take a few moments to post a review.

Once again, our sincere thanks

Nostaple Limited

Other books by Nostaple Limited:

The Justify This series:

Justify This 2006 - 2007

Justify This 2007 - 2008

Justify This 2008 - 2010

Justify This 2010 - 2011

Justify This 2011 - 2015

