Bailii [British And Irish Legal Information Institute] is rather like Hansard is to parliament for our magnificent courts. The place where one can find the proceedings of any serious court in the land(s). What follows is an interesting entry in this fascinating resource.
In which Mrs Christine Pratt is exposed as a bully herself, and absolutely NOT someone suitable to represent anyone on such matters: HERE.
Today she back-tracked and down-climbed over her blatant partisan smears on Gordon Brown and Number 10; to the point where she admitted that her frankly bloody useless (my appraisal) charity had not had a single complaint about Gordon Brown. And none at all about Downing Street and the like since 2007.
The whole judgment is a jolly good read for anyone considering either voting Tory, going on a Pratt and Pratt board, or giving this ridiculous woman a job; DON'T DO IT!
The wonder is that endorser Dave Cameron and Patrons Ann Widdecombe MP, Cllr Mary O'Connor, Prof Cary Cooper and a couple of entertainwits didn't have the gumption to check NBH out. And bully boy Andy Coulson has no excuse whatsoever. Is he actually working for Labour?
But here's a sample, just two of 36 paragraphs:
Paragraph 10: On 18 September (2000) the Applicant had met Mr Roberts and had what the Employment Tribunal referred to as a "frank exchange of views" and at a meeting on 6 October 2000, attended by Mr Tatsu and Mr Roberts, Ms Pratt behaved inappropriately. During the course of the meeting she complained that Mr Roberts failed to communicate with her. She went over to where Mr Roberts was sitting:
"thrust her face into his and screamed "Communicate!" very loudly and directly into his ear. Mr Roberts found this very painful and was profoundly shocked by her conduct."
Mr Roberts complained to Mr Noji suggesting the incident constituted gross misconduct, but Mr Noji told him it was not the company's policy to dismiss staff. Mr Noji, however, was horrified at the way Ms Pratt had behaved. The Employment Tribunal considered that her conduct was such that she could and probably should have been formally disciplined for her conduct towards Mr Roberts.
On 12 January 2001, Ms Pratt issued a grievance against Mr Roberts. A series of meetings took place involving senior executives and Ms Pratt, as well as Mr Roberts and led to the adoption of an action plan designed to improve relationships between Ms Pratt and Mr Roberts. Unfortunately the action plan broke down.
The Employment Tribunal considered that Ms Pratt adopted an aggressive and unhelpful attitude, and at a meeting with Mr Tatsu on 22 January 2001, she made a disparaging remark about Mr Tatsu's command of English which Mr Tatsu, whose first language was not English, found extremely hurtful. The Employment Tribunal considered that Ms Pratt could and should have been formally disciplined for this conduct. We interpolate that the Employment Tribunal considered that:
"The fact that the Respondent took no disciplinary action against the Applicant despite her behaviour throughout this period flies in the face of the Applicant's allegation that the Respondent was looking for an excuse to terminate her contract of employment."
"In the event, having regard, as we have said above, neither ground of appeal can succeed and in the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed."
Or in other words Mrs Christine Pratt, the judicially noticed bully, brought a case over constructive dismissal and LOST, and appealed, and also LOST.
At the Tribunal, on 20 August 2003. Judgment delivered on 22 October 2003.
Before this her Company HR & Diversity Management Limited had already been set up. On 30 April 2003 to be precise. And the charity at around the same time, though not registered or anything like that. Not until 27 September 2006.
Red tape, we'll cut through that.
TODAY: The Mail runs through the potted history of C Pratt victimhood since 1995.
Though being MSM and not blogger-powered they don't have the Sanden case outlined above. They do have a lovely PA photo however, sampled right.