Anonymous

(2024-03-01)

Prefer not to

Anonymous

(2024-03-31)

It took him 19 years to pass his solicitors exams qualify and ten years to pass solicitors exams .

Anonymous

(2024-06-06)

The Respondent’s handling of the appeal was shambolic. Mr Deen stated in

his letter of 7 August 2019 that he would “undertake a complete review of the

entire process leading to the decision to provide notice to you by reason of

redundancy”. When giving his evidence, Mr Deen’s attention was drawn to the

question asked of him by the Claimant in their meeting on 25 February 2019

as to the procedure he was following. Mr Deen asserted that, while he could

not now remember what his understanding of the procedure was, nonetheless

at the time he believed that he understood the procedure being followed. We

did not find that convincing. We were left with the impression that Mr Deen had

no understanding of what, if any, redundancy procedure was being used to

effect the dismissal of the Claimant. Mr Deen had not read properly the emails

which the Claimant had sent or, if he had, he had failed to investigate ahead of

the meeting and address the legitimate concerns she had raised. He did not

conduct a complete review. The review he conducted amounted to no more

than inviting the Claimant to present reasons as to why a different decision

should have been reached in preference to the decision that was made. He

did not even know how many employees the Respondent had. As the person

appointed on the advice of external solicitors to hear the appeal against

dismissal, it fell to him to make the decision on the appeal. However, the

pertinent decision on the appeal was made by the same external solicitors

after he had reported to them.

Zahy Nasseraldeen

Send an email to Zahy Nasseraldeen: