This document is a letter from Douglas Gardiner to Duncan Hames MP regarding his ongoing legal issues stemming from an industrial accident and subsequent employment dispute. Gardiner provides background on his various legal claims against his former employer, which he has lost at multiple levels of the UK court system. He expresses frustration that government agencies like DWP accepted his injury claim but the courts did not. Gardiner is seeking Hames' assistance as his case highlights a dichotomy between government support and an independent judiciary. He attaches documents related to his prohibited conduct complaint against a senior judge.

1. D09l45@gmail.com
From: <d09l45@gmail.com>
Date: 02 July 2013 13:24
To: <caxtonhouse.clerkpru@dwp.gsi.gov.uk>; <general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk>
Cc: <duncan@duncanhames.org.uk>
Subject: A divided nation.
Page 1 of 2
18/11/2013
To The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP
Secretary of State
Department for Work and Pensions
Caxton House
Tothill Street
London
SW1H 9DA
To The Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
United Kingdom
CC Rt Hon Duncan Hames MP
Dear Sir/Madam
I write to you in the middle of a long illness resulting from an industrial accident date 09/12/10.
The treatment I received from my former employer forced me into clinical depression and to resign
my long career.
Based upon those actions I have successfully claimed ESA, housing benefit and industrial injuries
benefit (20%).
I believe it is just that my former employers are liable for the costs incurred and compensation.
These burdens should not be borne alone by the public, the ministry of justice, the DWP, the local
council and myself.
To those ends I claimed constructive dismissal and submitted my case to the employment tribunal
which I lost,
I appealed that decision to the EAT and my case was found to be without reasonable prospect of
success,
I appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal and that was found to be totally without merit.
I asked for a review of that decision and was directed to the ECHR and told the Court of Appeal did
not have the resources to deal with my claims.

2. Cases
Employment Tribunal
1400500/2011, 1401745/2012, 1401756/2012 , 1401811/2012, 1401812/2012, 4109312/2012
Employment Appeal Tribunal UKEATPA/1798/11/JOJ UKEATPA/0386/13/LA
Court of Appeal A2 2012/2751 A2 2012/2752
I have applied to my former employers insurers for compensation only for my claim also to be
rejected.
Dear Mr Duncan Smith & Mr Grayling
I understand many people have difficulty and do not have their claims accepted by the DWP having
to appeal to the Ministry of Justice.
I am unable to understand the paradox or dichotomy of draconian unwillingness of the Ministry of
Justice to accept my claims, claims which have been accepted by the DWP?
The DWP is due compensation from insurers as am I.
Yours Faithfully
Douglas Gardiner
5 Weavern Court
Chippenham
SN14 0LU
Page 2 of 2
18/11/2013

4. D09l45@gmail.com
From: <d09l45@gmail.com>
Date: 24 October 2013 17:45
To: "Duncan Hames MP" <duncan@duncanhames.org.uk>
Attach: scan0001.pdf
Subject: Ref GardinerD150713
Page 1 of 1
18/11/2013
Dear Mr Hames
I thank you for your letter as attached, and was wondering if there was any response
from the Secretary of State or the Minister of Justice.
May I also notify you of a change of contact address.
6 Clover Dean,
Chippenham,
SN14 0PH
Yours Faithfully
Douglas Gardiner

10. D09l45@gmail.com
From: <d09l45@gmail.com>
Date: 18 November 2013 14:55
To: "Duncan Hames MP" <duncan@duncanhames.org.uk>
Attach: GardinerD301013.pdf; 1400500 capability v conduct.pdf; prohibited-conduct-questionnaire- signed.pdf
Subject: jdmgardinerd301013
Page 1 of 2
18/11/2013
Dear Mr Hames
Thank you for your time and recent letters – (a copy is attached for quick reference)
The letters you sent me in August and September have been lost in the post.
I hope you accept my apologies for the inconvenience caused by my failure to notify you
of the change of address earlier.
Referring to you letter saaGardinerD180913 and the attached letter from Lord
McNally.
Let me assure you for many reasons I am not disappointed by this letter, it comes as no
surprise!
Far from it, it identifies that I have at least managed to get my story across. But with the
remaining problems.
1) The Tribunal refuses point blank to accept many well founded true facts of the case,
this was the basis of my appeal.
2) I do not have the capability to argue points of law, in fact I do not understand points
of law or the complexities of case law or “The independence of the judiciary”.
I believed that the employment tribunal including the Judge in accordance with public
policy had a duty to assist unrepresented claimants and defendants, identify all of the
issues, the independent judiciary in these cases has clearly represented the interests of
the employer throughout.
To these ends I have reviewed the Judgment myself and submitted a prohibited conduct
questionnaire to Lord Elias of the Court of Appeal (See attachments) .
Referring to your letter ksGardinerD270813 and the attached letter from Lord Freud.
Again I am not disappointed by this letter, it comes as no surprise!
Far from it identifies that I have managed to get my story across. Again with problems.
1) The DWP accepted the facts of the injuries sustained, the respondents insurers legal

11. representatives refused to accept.
2) I have no desire to consult a solicitor as I have had contact with more lawyers than I
care to remember the result, I have no trust in their profession.
3) I have submitted a personal injury claim to the county court. However my former
employers have already bragged that my claim will not succeed.
In my case the dichotomy remains – Government v The independence of the judiciary.
This is a question of politics an individual cannot answer.
Yours Sincerely
Douglas Gardiner
+44 (0)7 97 31 72 405
Page 2 of 2
18/11/2013