This site gives details of how we believe Judge Horne, sitting at Manchester Employment Tribunals Court, aided one Employer (Respondent) in winning a tribunal. Our belief is based on Judge Horne's actions during the tribunal process and, unlike Judge Horne, we give the reasons (grounds) for the belief.
The basic test of apparent bias is – “whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased”. After reading this site you can decide for yourself if you believe there was a "real possibility" that the Tribunal in this instance was bias; or was Judge Horne simply incompetent? If Judge Horne feels this site has libelled him, he is more then welcome to take legal action, in fact we encourage him to do so.
Judge Horne’s decision with regard the case featured on this site means disciplinary investigations are no longer fact finding exercises. Investigations are now simply administrative exercises which do not need to establish the relevant facts but, which must be carried out in order to tick the ‘we carried out an investigation’ box so that the disciplinary process can be moved on to the disciplinary hearing.
Judge Horne's decision also means disciplinary and appeal outcomes do not need to be based on the evidence presented to the disciplinary or appeal officers at the time. Disciplinary outcomes will now be considered fair by an Employment Tribunal simply by the Respondent pulling 'facts', 'beliefs' or 'knowledge' out of thin air at tribunal, which were not investigated or formed as a result of an investigation, or established by an investigation, or disclosed as part of the disciplinary process, or verified or put to any test, or documented, or even put to the Claimant during the disciplinary process. In essence, a Respondent can now make up any bullshit they want at an Employment Tribunal and it will be accepted; especially if Judge Horne sits alone without any lay persons keeping him in check.