London s Appeal in London

Experience with the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) London. 8 Jan 2026 - Appeal lodged. 19 Jan 2026 - Appeal acknowledged by Akossiwa Ahadzi, Admin Officer. 2 Feb 2026 - requested the Employment Tribunal, Watford, to provide a hearing transcript with the reason so that I could send it to the EAT to highlight factual inaccuracies and incorrect facts cited in the detailed decision document by the Employment Tribunal Watford Judge. The general timeframe regarding transcripts is around 12 days. 6 Feb 2026 - EAT London determined the appeal before I had any opportunity to place the transcript before the EAT London as supporting document for the appeal. The Registrar by the name Ms N Daly and the EAT Judge by the name Mr Auerbach referred to the Employment Judge at Watford, W Anderson—a white female judge—as “he” in the decision document. This basic factual error gives a troubling message to one side of lack of care and attention in judicial determination, especially in claims containing racial discrimination elements. 7 Feb 2026: Formally requested that the EAT London amend the decision and expressed disappointment with the calibre of Judicial personnel involved in decision-making and the apparent procedural shortcomings. 11 Feb 2026: HHJ Auerbach acknowledged that the decision referred to Employment Judge W Anderson (a female judge) as “he”. However, no amended decision document was issued, as confirmed in correspondence from Abbey Thomas. 11 Feb 2026: The 28-day period for requesting a Rule 3(10) hearing runs from 6 Feb 2026. 17 Feb 2026: A second reminder was sent to Employment Tribunal Watford requesting the hearing transcript, which is relevant to factual issues in the decisions. 9 Mar 2026 - Appeal is refused because It was received on Monday instead of Friday as per letter by Abbey Thomas on behalf of the Registrar. Respondents' late submissions were accepted by the Employment Tribunal (Employment Appeal Tribunal found no issues either) after the deadlines but claimant's appeal is refused due to 'rules'. 11 Dec 2025: As a litigant in person, I was not informed how the hearing would be conducted. There were connectivity issues. I was initially directed by the tribunal clerk (Rebecca Darling) to call the generic number on the hearing email, which could not assist. After significant delay, a direct dial-in number was provided by Rebecca Darling. 11 Dec 2025: The respondent’s ET3 was served on the claimant during the interim hearing. The interim decision relied on the ET3 to restrict the scope of the claimant’s claims, including exclusion of the unequal pay claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal subsequently concluded that this did not raise a question of law. Technically have 7 days to apply for permission to appeal but have no idea when the revised decision document would be received. Employment Appeals Tribunal can show some respect to aggrieved parties. For a national appellate tribunal, this is the lease that can be expected. Specific details will be added to this review once the EAT London process concludes. Employment Judge W Anderson concluded by making judgement about the whole case during the Interim hearing for Whistleblowing while keeping claimant's plea strictly to Interim hearing only. Check the last sentence of the decision document, the hearing was strictly about interim hearing and then the judge took liberty to make a judgement about the whole unfair dismissal case. The appeal document, along with, employer's defence position will be uploaded for everyone to compare the contents of this decision document. The technicalities, was whistleblowing done in right order, were favoured over substance of issues, whistleblowing regarding unlawful practices, as per the claimant. For legal review of the actual documentation, interested parties with verified legal identity may leave their details here. If you have experienced similar treatment, add structured and factual experiences to this review to highlight EAT administrative practices that may otherwise remain unseen behind closed doors.