Gibraltar Corruption

Is there still Rule of Law in Gibraltar? Is there corruption in the local police?

Are employees' Human Rights protected? Is there a mafia in Gibraltar?

How corrupt are the Courts in Gibraltar? Is Entain a bad employer?

The complete failure of Kenneth Navas as Tribunal Chairman.

After handing in my claim form at the Employment Tribunal's counter on 29 May 2018, I heard nothing for a while, till I was informed that Kenneth Navas was appointed Chairman for my case. Mr Navas runs a small law firm with a handful of lawyers. He later became the Chairman of the Gibraltar Law Council, the professional association of lawyers in Gibraltar. Mr Navas proved to be a friendly man who likes to please everyone. Although he has been helpful to me, for instance by giving me advice and guidance to write my Schedule of Loss, his tendency to please everyone made him a weak Tribunal Chairman.

After a first preliminary hearing on 18 September 2018, 7 more preliminary hearings followed. All of these dealt with the exchange and disclosure of evidence, which the Hassans lawyers, at the instructions of Entain, complicated to the maximum by simply refusing to provide evidence. It was obvious to me that someone who claims not to be guilty, does not have a need to hide evidence. Chairman Navas was clearly scared to upset Hassans, potentially because it could harm the business interests of his little law firm. On 27 November 2019, Mr Navas stepped down as Chairman, resulting in 18 months of time wasting.

My letter to Tribunal Chairman Kenneth Navas, proving his complete failure to enforce the relevant rules and regulations on Hassans, representing Entain:

The Chairman of the Employment Tribunal
Joshua Hassan House
3 Secretary's Lane
Gibraltar

Reference Emp Tri 17/2018

Gibraltar 12th August 2019
Dear Sir,

1. Please find hereunder my reply to the 31st July 2019 letter directed to you and copied to me. Before I answer the different items addressed in that letter, I wish to point out that the letter is potentially a fraud. The letter was signed by a Mr, Mrs or Ms Hassans but after checking, I can confirm that at Hassans International Law Firm, there is no such person. What could be the reasons for Mr Dumas and/or Mr Heaton to send a letter to this Tribunal's Chairman but hide behind a fake name and signature? This does not seem to be a simple oversight to me and is possibly an attempt to complicate an investigation in the many potentially criminal aspects of how my case is being dealt with by the Respondent and their lawyers.
I refer to the Crimes Act 2011:
Offence of fraud.
415.(1) A person commits fraud if he is in breach of any of sections 416, 417 or 418 (which provide for different ways of committing the offence). (2) A person who commits fraud is liable–
(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for 12 months or the statutory maximum fine, or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 10 years.
Fraud by false representation.
416.(1) A person is in breach of this section if he–
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation; and
(b) intends, by making the representation–
(i) to make a gain for himself or another; or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if–
(a) it is untrue or misleading; and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) In this section, “representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of–
(a) the person making the representation; or
(b) any other person.
(4) For the purposes of this section a representation may be–
(a) express or implied;
(b) regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device
designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).
423.(1) For the purposes of sections 416 to 418, “gain” and “loss”–
(a) extend only to gain or loss in money or other property;
(b) include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent;
and in this context, “property” means any property whether real or personal (including things in action and other intangible property).

2. After having analysed the content of the Hassans letter it becomes clear that this is actually a poorly hidden attempt to mislead and intimidate me and this Tribunal's Chairman. Threats, false representations and unfounded allegations in the Hassans letter show frustration on the Respondent's side about the clear and undeniable indications that they are losing their case entirely. More correctly worded; they do not even have a case and fail to fabricate one out of thin air. Hassans then comes up with a laughable legal request; “The Respondent is unhappy so strike out the case.” I would like to point out that no legal arguments or precedents are brought up in which a Chairman or Judge has ruled that the unhappiness of the Respondent is a valid reason to strike out claims. What the Respondent obviously really wants is that the 750 pages of evidence and my 206 pages witness statement are not considered by the Tribunal. I am confident that the Chairman will not fall in this trap and see this attempt as another extra aggravating factor during the quantum stage of the proceedings.
In this context I wish to refer to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights that considers the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948:
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 Court of Human Rights concluded that this is an effective right: the parties to the proceedings have the right to present the observations which they regard as relevant to their case. This right can only be seen to be effective if the observations are actually “heard”, that is to say duly considered by the trial court (Donadze v. Georgia, § 35). In other words, the “tribunal” has a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties (Kraska v. Switzerland, § 30; Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, § 59; Perez v. France [GC], § 80). In order for the right guaranteed by this Article to be effective, the authorities must exercise “diligence”: for an appellant not represented by a lawyer, see Kerojärvi v. Finland, § 42; Fretté v. France.
3. Under point 1 of the Hassans letter, they bring up “the Claimant's ongoing correspondence with both the Tribunal and the Respondent”. I wish to make clear here that I do not directly correspond with the Respondent as the letter claims. I was only forced to do that for a very short period of time as a result of the outcome of the GRA investigation which concluded that the Respondent broke the Data Protection Act and related regulations twice. Those communications between the Respondent and I were limited to the necessary for the hand over of the data which I had requested a year earlier. This was being dealt with by the Respondent's in house lawyers and did not involve Hassans. Since this was concluded and the Respondent was forced by the GRA to hand over the requested data on 20th March 2019, I have not been in direct contact with the Respondent. I do not know why the Respondent did not trust Hassans with the Data Protection issue.

4. Under point 3 from the Hassans letter, they claim that the Tribunal has awarded me, as a litigant-in-person, an extreme and unacceptable level of indulgence. I entirely disagree with that statement. As soon as it became clear to me that the Respondent's strategy is to postpone and stall the proceedings whenever they can, to try to wear me out, make me run out of finances, abandon my claims, commit suicide, etc. I have constantly complained that the Chairman is possibly allowing the Respondent too many postponements. The constant problems created by the Respondent and their lawyers have forced me to write to the Tribunal many more times than I had anticipated. Although I am convinced that the proceedings should go at a much faster pace, I think the Chairman has found a just and fair balance between Hassans aggression and my lack of legal knowledge that the Respondent and Hassans are clearly trying to exploit. Regarding the possibility that I might be pushed to commit suicide, a fact communicated during earlier Hearings, I refer once again to the Crimes Act 2011:
Complicity in suicide.
159.(1) A person (‘D’) commits an offence if–
(b) D’s act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.
(3) D may commit an offence under this section whether or not a suicide, or an attempt at suicide, occurs.
(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 14 years.

5. I entered my Claim Form at this Employment Tribunal on 29th May 2018. My case is actually a very simple one without any exceptional requests. Bullying, Victimisation and Unfair Dismissal can be proven with an abundance of evidence. Witnesses are summoned constantly all over the world, there is nothing unusual about that. In my case, these witnesses only have to be summoned, as I have repeatedly stated, because of the Respondent's behaviour. As my claims are very basic, the original date for the final Hearing was set on 6th May 2019 in agreement with all parties.
I refer again to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
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 Court of Human Rights concluded regarding the litigant’s claims that: it is a matter of principle that in the determination of his “civil rights and obligations” – as defined in the case-law of the Strasbourg Court 12 – everyone is entitled to a fair hearing by a tribunal. To this are added the guarantees laid down by Article 6 § 1 as regards both the organisation and the composition of the court, and the conduct of the proceedings. In sum, the whole makes up the right to a fair hearing (Golder v. the United Kingdom, § 36).
In requiring cases to be heard within a “reasonable time”, the Convention underlines the importance of administering justice without delays which might jeopardise its effectiveness and credibility (H. v. France, § 58; Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, § 61). Although the domestic authorities cannot be held responsible for the conduct of a defendant, the delaying tactics used by one of the parties do not absolve the authorities from their duty to ensure that the proceedings are conducted within a reasonable time (Mincheva v. Bulgaria, § 68).
It must be very clear that the Respondent's and Hassans' approach of the proceedings is aimed at making my case unfair and they are as such breaking the European Convention on Human Rights to my detriment.

6. Things have not always been this bad though. I had actually built up a nice working relation with Ms Walsh for instance by reorganising the evidence bundle and removing duplicates. This stands in a very sharp contrast with the present Hassans aggressive bully tactics since Mr Dumas and Mr Heaton took over. This is clearly against the spirit of the Tribunal rules and an attempt by Hassans to try to impose Supreme Court rules on this Employment Tribunal. This is evidenced by the hard, brutal and unnecessarily accusatory tone in the 31st July 2019 letter. Specifically Mr Dumas is not practising what he preaches, he prides himself on the Hassans website of having been Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal so he should know better. The eye catcher statement on Mr Dumas' page on the Hassans website reads: “You have to start from the position that whatever the client needs, you can deliver. The default setting has to be 'yes'.” The question here is, how far is Mr Dumas prepared to go to deliver what he promises and what exactly has he promised the Respondent?

7. As the new Hassans style introduced by Mr Dumas and Mr Heaton is not helpful in the progress of the proceedings I wish to point out the relevant part of the Overriding Objective of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Procedure) Rules 2016:
3.(1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Employment Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly.
(2) Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes, so far as practicable–
(c) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings;
(d) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues;
(4) The parties and their representatives shall assist the Tribunal to further the overriding objective and in particular shall co-operate generally with each other and with the Tribunal.
The Respondent and Hassans once again show that they do not follow these basic principles. I am of the opinion that it is about time that the Chairman reminds the other party of their duty under the Law.

8. Under point 4 in the Hassans letter they bring up an extract from my correspondence in which I complain about Mr Dumas having no time for my case. Another attempt actually to prolong the case unnecessarily. Hassans employs 300 people, the Respondent over 30,000 people but no one can attend a simple Hearing to fix some dates? But on the other hand they find the time to write the 31st July letter... What a contradiction! The other party chose not to reply to my suggestion to send someone else, which is another obvious show of lack of goodwill and confirming their strategy of postponing and stalling the proceedings whenever possible. Again, the original date for the final hearing was 6th May 2019, now we are most probably looking at the end of next year to conclude these proceedings, which is totally unacceptable, unfair and unjust.

9. Hassans write in their letter that my remarks about the (now convicted) child rapist's case in the Supreme Court trial are irrelevant. I entirely disagree with that point of view. I think it is quite normal and accepted to study your opponent's (Mr Dumas') way of working to learn how to deal with their approach in a court case. I found Mr Dumas' accusation in that Supreme Court trial that a raped minor was possibly using drugs entirely inappropriate, creating extra and unnecessary stigma and trauma and showing lack of respect for the young victim's mental health. The drugs issue was entirely irrelevant to the rape and only makes it worse for the child's future, how to find a job with that drugs stigma? I see that the Respondent and their lawyers are using a similar strategy on me, trying to present me as a bad employee or someone with whom it was difficult to work with. This invented allegation is totally incorrect and fully irrelevant for the Bullying, Victimisation and Unfair Dismissal claims. The threat to present me as “Mr Bad Guy” is simply said blackmail to try to convince me to drop my claims. This is entirely unacceptable.
Regarding blackmail I refer to the Crimes Act 2011:
414.(1) A person who, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, makes any unwarranted demand with menaces, is guilty of blackmail and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for 14 years.
(3) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

10. Hassans wrote that my mentioning of the child rapist's case is capable of being an interference in that Supreme Court process. That statement is ridiculous. How can I interfere in that process via a private letter to a handful of people in an Employment Tribunal not involved in any way in those Supreme Court proceedings? I made no public comments about the rapist's case, not even with friends or on social media. How I could possibly interfere with that Supreme Court case is purely used as a pretext to threaten me and try to intimidate me. Hassans also wrote that I risk to commit contempt of court and libel. This case has heavily featured on a daily basis in the local press. Is that interfering, libel and contempt of court too? And what about all those posts on social media with impossible to misunderstand and almost graphic descriptions of what should happen with the rapist's reproductive organs, is that contempt of court too? And libel, whom is Hassans referring to? For sure not Mr Dumas, he is a very good and renowned lawyer and that is why parties hire him for hopeless cases. That is a compliment actually, not an insult. I for instance also went to sit in the audience of the recent GHA bullying case in the Employment Tribunal to learn how the procedures, like for example witness cross examination, work. Will Hassans now also claim that I was interfering with those proceedings?

11. Hassans bring up that my opinion that “They have been raping my rights for over 2 years now.” is an offensive remark regarding their client's employees. I found Hassans' comment hilarious as it is not illegal to use imagery. I was simply stating a fact proven by 750 pages of evidence and my personal 206 pages witness statement, confirmed by a second independent witness statement. I understand that Hassans is referring here to Ms Danielle Wood from the HR Department at the Respondent's. This lady is the company's contact with Hassans, according to the documentation presented to this Tribunal, although this lady was the main cause of the whole range of problems I had with GVC Services Ltd and this will be demonstrated very clearly by the evidence. How a person responsible for the fact that I am suing the company in this Tribunal is made responsible for coordinating the company's defence strategy leaves me flabbergasted. Why did the company not choose someone else of their over 30,000 employees, an impartial and neutral person who was not involved in the Bullying and Victimisation leading to my Unfair Dismissal? I am convinced that if that would have been the case, this would most probably have led to a settlement out of court a long time ago. I feel that Ms Wood may be “covering up” her own past mistakes and unprofessional behaviour for fear of how this could affect her in her career with the Respondent. This is just another example that the Respondent's internal procedures need to be reviewed as they are not fit for purpose, as I will prove with evidence.

12. To guarantee fair and just proceedings, the Chairman has the possibility to exclude witnesses from Hearings to prevent them of being influenced. It is therefore entirely wrong that an important witness, Ms Danielle Wood from the Respondent's HR department, has been put in charge of coordinating the Respondent's defence with their lawyers. Ms Wood has a position of power over other witnesses still employed by the Respondent and could use that position to influence those other witnesses. As I accuse Ms Wood of professional failures and possibly negligence, her approach of my case could therefore be biased and constitute a significant conflict of interest. In her position as a witness, Ms Wood gets to see all legal dealings between the parties and that includes all other witness statements. In principle this makes that Ms Wood has the possibility to manipulate the proceedings significantly. I request that the Tribunal looks into this matter and takes the necessary step to remedy this injustice.
I refer to the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Procedure) Rules 2016:
40.(3) The Tribunal may exclude from the hearing any person who is to appear as a witness in the proceedings until such time as that person gives evidence if it considers it in the interests of justice to do so.

13. Hassans continue with their list of allegations without the support of any evidence. This time they claim that I am maligning anyone associated with this case on the opposing side. Is Hassans asking the Chairman to impose a gagging order on me and only let me bring up the things Hassans like? What about Freedom of Opinion? What does the Respondent actually expect me to do, send them a thank you letter for bullying, victimising and unfairly dismissing me? One of the medical experts treating me said that I have already been convicted to a life sentence of depression and alcoholism with the constant risk of suicide. A prolonged death sentence, and the best option I have is to try to learn to live with that.
I refer to the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006 regarding the protection of freedom of expression:
10.-(1) Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his correspondence.

14. Under point 5 in the Hassans letter they list up a very incomplete list of aggravating factors in this Employment Tribunal case. Hassans calls them “allegations” although in reality they are documented facts that they find hard to accept. For instance the list “forgets” to mention that Mr Dumas brought up information during the last Hearing that was only mentioned once by me in a Without Prejudice meeting with Ms Walsh. A very deplorable action. Not to forget the email communication from Hassans that I received during my holiday in Belgium and that completely destroyed my holiday feeling and further added to my distress. There is no doubt in my mind that this was done intentionally to try to make my life harder and push me to abandon my claims. This is utterly despicable.

15. Nowhere in the Law, regulations or rules is written that pointing out the aggravating factors is not allowed. Instead of committing all the documented facts, the Respondent could have done more to come to a settlement. It is not my intention to influence the Chairman's opinion by bringing up the aggravating factors as they come to my attention. I believe the Chairman can come to an independent conclusion and is well placed and experienced to make up his own mind if the aggravating factors are relevant or not. Hassans and the Respondent seem to doubt the professional qualities and capabilities of the Chairman, which I find shocking.

16. Thanks to Hassans' (incomplete) summary of aggravating factors, I studied several UK cases where the aggravating factors have led to a 15% increase of the compensation. In my case that would make for the different scenarios from my recently updated Schedule of Loss:
- Scenario 1: *********************
- Scenario 1B: *********************
- Scenario 2A: *********************
- Scenario 2B: *********************
- Scenario 3: *********************
This shows once again that the Respondent's strategy of prolonging the proceedings to the maximum works against them. Long gone are the days that I thought that in the best case scenario the compensation would be capped to two years of wages...

17. The ongoing postponing of the exchange of witness statements is yet again another aggravating factor trying to further damage my mental health. I am convinced that my detailed witness statement will lead to a settlement out of court as no one at the Respondent's will be able to claim that “nothing happened” or “I imagined it all” anymore. The only party involved winning because of the postponing of the exchange of witness statements is Hassans. Postponing means more money for them. I can add that the medical experts who already went through my witness statement were shocked, especially regarding the lack of Duty of Care and dysfunctional complaints procedures at the Respondent's.

18. I wish to repeat that in contrast with the Respondent I have no means to pay for a lawyer able to defend me against a formidable QC like Mr Dumas. Instead I am forced to eat my savings away while the proceedings are dragging on and on. As I am a litigant-in-person I write my own defence and letters, like this one. As per point 1.2.10. from my latest updated Schedule of Loss I can be compensated for the time I spend on my case. On this occasion I worked 37 hours on this letter x £34.67 which makes an extra £1,272.79 to be added to my losses.
I refer to the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Procedure) Rules 2016 mentioning preparation time orders:
61.(2) A preparation time order is an order that a party (“the paying party”) make a payment to another party (“the receiving party”) in respect of the receiving party’s preparation time while not legally represented.
65.(1) The Tribunal shall decide the number of hours in respect of which a preparation time order should be made, on the basis of–
(a) information provided by the receiving party on time spent falling within rule 61(2);
65.(2) The hourly rate is £33 and increases on 1 January each year with the general index of retail prices for Gibraltar.

19. Point 6 from the Hassans letter accuses me of a “lengthy campaign of hostile, vitriolic and offensive communications”. I am also accused of: “an attempt to conduct this case by email, is putting at risk the just and fair disposal of this case”. Again this repeats the accusation and/or assumption that the Respondent and Hassans think that the Chairman is not capable of coming to an independent and unbiased judgement based on facts. I do not share those beliefs and trust in the Chairman's intelligence and honesty.

20. Point 6 in the Hassans letter then continues that my way of defending my claims as a litigant-inperson is “a wholesale abuse of the process of the Tribunal, its resources and staff”. This statement caused me to burst out laughing uncontrollably as this is exactly what the Respondent and Hassans are doing with their unstoppable stalling and postponement efforts. Although in no way am I abusing anyone or anything, I wish to apologise to all the Employment's Tribunal staff in case that by me defending myself I might have caused any nuisance. I am under the impression though that I am not creating such nuisances. However what is creating a huge nuisance is that the Respondent is constantly abusing these proceedings in this Employment Tribunal to continue to bully me.
I refer to the Employment (Bullying at Work) Act 2014 where the meaning of bullying is defined as follows:
4.(1) A person (“A”) subjects another person (“B”) to bullying where A engages in conduct which has the purpose or effect of causing B to be alarmed, distressed, humiliated or intimidated.
(2) In subsection (1) the reference to conduct includes–
(a) persistent behaviour which is offensive, intimidating, abusive, malicious or insulting;
(b) persistent unjustified criticism;
This describes perfectly what I had to go through while working at the Respondent's and the continuation of that behaviour via the abuse of these proceedings.
I also refer to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
ARTICLE 3
Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. And regarding Hassans role in the Respondent's behaviour, I refer to the Crimes Act 2011: 36.(1) A person commits an offence if
(a) he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence;
47.(l) A person who aids, abets, counsels, procures, suborns or commands the commission of an indictable offence is liable to be dealt with, indicted, tried and punished as a principal offender.
Further relevant parts of the Crimes Act 2011:
Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
88.(1) A person commits an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he–
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour; and thereby causes that or another person harassment, alarm or distress. Prohibition of harassment.
91.(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct which
(a) amounts to harassment of another; and
(b) he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(1A) A person must not pursue a course of conduct−
(c) by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)−
(i) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or
(ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.
92.(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 91(1) or (1A) commits an offence.
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for 12 months, or the statutory maximum fine, or both.

21. Then the letter accuses me of vexatiousness. I have to admit that I had no idea what that word meant so I looked it up in the Cambridge English Dictionary where I found; “vexatious: having little chance of succeeding in law, but intended to annoy someone or cause problems for them.” That is exactly what the Respondent is doing to me. This is exactly the same as what happened with the GRA investigation that concluded that THEY were GUILTY and there was no vexatiousness at all on my side. 750 pages of evidence, 206 pages of witness statement and 6 medical experts are all proving that my claims are not really a sign of vexatiousness. The vexatious behaviour by the Respondent on the other hand is continuously creating further costs. I therefore request the Tribunal to write cost orders for the Tribunal costs and my raising medical costs. The tax payer cannot be forced to pay for this.

22. The continuous hiding of evidence by the Respondent can easily be proven. For instance, my request to get or inspect some Excel files, as demonstrated by the three emails below I sent to Ms Walsh:
20th January 2019
“Re the quality feedback forms I understand that customer data are blacked out, those are indeed not relevant to my Claims. I would like to receive the original Excel files though to check the dates when they were last manipulated. As well for some fields some information is missing that is not printed with the rest of the pages. This information is very relevant for me. In case any of it is used, what is highly likely, I accept that personal customer data will be blacked out.”
4th March 2019
“The pdf prints provided do not provide all information in the Excel files, e.g. pop up notes indicated by a little red triangle. I am not interested in any of the customer data as those are entirely irrelevant to my Claims. I agree that in case any customer data are visible in material I want to use, those are blacked out.”
21st March 2019
“I am interested in the "2nd quality feedback" and "3rd quality feedback" Excel file. There is one very specific pop up of interest in those Excel files.
As solution I propose that I get access to the Excel file on a computer under your control and I then make a screenshot on that computer of the pop up. You can then edit that screenshot to remove any personal data and email it to me. I am not interested in the personal data anyway.”
I believe that I have shown in these emails to be polite, to the point and flexible. But still I have not gotten the evidence requested, more than half a year later.

23. I wish to point out the criminal aspect of the Respondent and Hassans' threatening ways and how they are are dealing with these proceedings. I am convinced that the only aim of the 31st July 2019 letter was to intentionally try to cause me further mental health harm to make me give up my claims. Hassans could have done this entirely differently, like for instance invite me to a Without Prejudice meeting to discuss the (entirely irrelevant) points raised in their letter. There is another problem with that though; Mr Dumas could then divulge that information during Hearings, as has already happened once. The Respondent and Hassans must know very well that they are causing me further mental health damage which could potentially push me towards suicide. There is no need to strike out my claims, the medical experts need to be heard first, they need to tell the Tribunal that they find what has happened to me shocking. One of the medical experts treating me has served as an expert witness in several court cases before. From the Respondent I expect irrational and unreasonable behaviour but I find Hassans way of dealing with me and my claims, and specifically the 31st July 2019 letter, unprofessional, immoral, unethical and possibly criminal. I am investigating the avenue of filing complaints with the Gibraltar Bar Council for the unacceptable way Hassans is working against me here.
Further relevant parts of the Crimes Act 2011:
Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
96.(1) A person who sends to another person–
(a) a letter, communication or article of any description which conveys–
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; commits an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
(4) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for 12 months or to the statutory maximum fine, or both.

24. I am aware that these criminal aspects do not fall under the jurisdiction of this Employment Tribunal. I am not planning to sue for the criminal aspects of this case, for now, but I will definitely keep the option open for later.

25. Whilst I still worked for the Respondent, I started to suffer from depression caused by the relentless bullying during working hours. Although I do follow the advice and guidance of the medical specialists, as much as possible, it has to be pointed out that I am significantly more aggressive and defensive than before I developed the mental health problems during my employment at the Respondent's. So when I might use bad language I cannot be made responsible for it as it is caused by my medical condition, the result of the horrendous saga of bullying and victimisation followed by the unfair dismissal.

26. That the Hassans letter from 31st July 2019 was signed by a non-existent person and fake signature was apparently done for a good number of reasons, as explained above. Hassans should divulge who wrote and sent, or gave permission to send, the letter so as to allow me to take the necessary and proper action against these people. Someone should be made accountable. Breaking the Law, treading on my Human Rights, contempt for the Tribunal and its Chairman, etc. goes to prove that the Respondent knows they have lost their case in its entirety and clutch at every straw available to try to get away with it. This deserves a stern proactive management from the Chairman.

27. Regarding the “bad employee” issue I propose that a Preliminary Hearing be held only about this point. Both parties can bring up their arguments and then the Chairman can decide if the “bad employee” claim is relevant for the final Hearing for Liability or not. This will prevent further blackmail by the Respondent and their lawyers. If necessary these points or issues can be removed from witness statements and other relevant items used during the proceedings.

28. What concerns my claims, I am convinced that at least the perception of bullying is proven, no one involved in these proceedings should doubt that by now. Six medical experts have been involved in diagnosing and treating the mental health problems caused by the Respondent. How does the Respondent think to prove that all six of them are wrong? These two simple points show that my claims are for real and not a figment of my imagination. But still not even witness statements have been exchanged and procedures are expected to continue for another year and a half because of the manipulations of the Respondent and their lawyers. I therefore request that the Chairman strikes out the Respondent's response as they have no case at all, accepts all of my claims as proven and continues immediately with the quantum stage.

I reserve all rights regarding my claims and the further proceedings.

Yours faithfully,

ir. Bart Van Thienen MSc.
Gibraltar Heritage Trust Award 2014
Gibraltar Independent Civil Society Award 2017
P.S. My name is real, I exist in real life and my signature is authentic. I have nothing to hide.

All information published in this website is in the public domain or reflects the opinion of the author. As such this website's content is protected by Art 10. of the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006, Protection of freedom of expression:
"Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference."