An industrial accident occurred at Exsto UK premises, injuring the claimant Douglas Gardiner. As a result, Gardiner has been unable to work and suffers ongoing disabilities. The Department for Work and Pensions determined the accident was industrial in nature and awarded Gardiner 20% disability benefits. However, Exsto UK and its insurers Amlin have denied liability and resisted compensation efforts. Gardiner is seeking damages for lost earnings, injuries, and declining quality of life in the wake of the accident at Exsto UK.

1. Gardiner v Exsto Uk & ORS - 06/01/14
Page 1 of 9
1) DWP facts of accident
“Industrial injuries disability benefit” at the rate of 20% until May 2015

2. Gardiner v Exsto Uk & ORS - 06/01/14
Page 2 of 9
2) Facts found at Bristol Employment Tribunal paragraphs 6 & 7
“The claimant was anxious”
6. We have heard evidence from both parties and seen the letters that were written
about that meeting and our conclusion is that the claimant was somewhat anxious about
his position
“The claimant was taken aback by criticism”
7. The first thing that the manager wanted to say was that the claimant should have
phoned in to report direct to him. Mr Gardiner agreed that he had not but contended
that he had not got the manager's telephone number. That may have soured things
further because after hearing the evidence our conclusion is that that could not be
true. It is inconceivable that an intelligent man who had worked for Exsto for several
years did not know the local Bath telephone number of the office. He had a land line
available at his parent's home, and if he did not have a number for the personal mobile
of Mr Baxevanids he could have obtained this from his friend and colleague Mr
Bezard. He acknowledged also then that he did not make any attempt to get an earlier
flight than that offered by the airline for 8 December.The manager's comment was that
he (Mr Baxevanidis) should have been contacted direct and that the claimant should
have tried to get an earlier flight, because everyone knew that Exsto's office was a
very busy one. Mr Baxevanidis also pointed out that he, the Manager, had looked on
line and found flights available for the previous Monday. We accept that the claimant
was taken aback by criticism.
The facts found and by the DWP decision making process. The claimant was at
the premises of Exsto UK, a State defined industrial accident occurred resulting
in personal injury.
Exsto UK are a subsidiary of Exsto (France) Peninsular Business services at the
time of the accident were providers of outsourced human resource
management services.

3. Gardiner v Exsto Uk & ORS - 06/01/14
Page 3 of 9
3) Loss of quality of life
Since the accident date of the 09/12/10 the claimant has suffered significant
disability with a measurable decline in quality of life. For example the claimant
has been unable to return to valuable employment, enjoy an active social life
or drive alone. With medical treatment and consultation the claimants’ health
has improved significantly since March 2011, he continues treatment and to
use an artificial aid in the form of medication to combat the conditions caused
and to suffer the symptoms albeit in a milder form.

4. Gardiner v Exsto Uk & ORS - 06/01/14
Page 4 of 9
4) Compensation
Compensation for the injury - £25,000
Compensation for current loss of earnings 142 weeks – £94,000 before tax
Compensation for future loss of earnings 15 years - £550,000 before tax
Fees – +25% subject to compliance with the statutory scheme.
Financial expenses – The government financial expenses that relate to the
injury
Benefits (deducted from compensation) - Unknown
Employment Tribunal, EAT and Appeal Court costs - Unknown
Medical treatment NHS - Unknown
5) Wasted costs.
Should the respondents or their representatives continue to deny any liability
of the industrial accident, in order to agree the required action of the court
would be, to overturn the findings of fact of the DWP, and continue the
detrimental unreasonable treatment of the claimant?
6) Res judica & estopple do not apply.
The key facts have been presented to the Bristol Employment Tribunal in Sept
2011 albeit in a different form, judgment was passed in favour of the
respondents. No judgment was passed on personal injury and in relation to a
“schedule of loss for personal injury” the Bristol Employment Tribunal stated:
To the claimant,
“the Tribunal has no power to award you compensation as set out in your
schedule of loss”

5. Gardiner v Exsto Uk & ORS - 06/01/14
Page 5 of 9
7) Statement of inability to pay costs.
The respondents’ insurers Amlin have stated:
“Please note that should we successfully defend this matter we will seek to recover all
legal costs and we therefore strongly suggest that you seek legal representation.”
As a result of the industrial accident at the premises of Exsto UK Ltd and
injuries sustained.
The claimant has remained unfit for employment and has no savings or
disposable assets.
The claimants’ current weekly income is
1) Industrial injuries disability benefit £32.32
Less weekly expenditure (approximate)
1) CSA £5.00
2) Utilities £8.00
3) Transport £20.00
4) Food & clothing £10.00
Sub-Total £43.00
Total -£10.68

6. Gardiner v Exsto Uk & ORS - 06/01/14
Page 6 of 9
8) Pre action protocol
The respondents and their insurers Amlin were sent a letter of claim 31/01/13
and have been evasive after several reminders they finally reached their
conclusion on the date of 28/06/13, two months over the acceptable limit.

7. Gardiner v Exsto Uk & ORS - 06/01/14
Page 7 of 9

8. Gardiner v Exsto Uk & ORS - 06/01/14
Page 8 of 9

9. Gardiner v Exsto Uk & ORS - 06/01/14
Page 9 of 9
9) Letter Lord Freud
The claimant has written to his MP for clarification of why the Employment
Tribunals decision is in such conflict with the DWP. Lord Freud in the attached
letter gives good reason why compensation is due.
Statement of truth
10) This is a true statement to the best of my current knowledge.
Douglas Gardiner
06/01/2014