I was left confused after attending as a witness in an Employment Tribunal held over seven years ago.
The Plaintiff claimed that the MD of a company had demoted the Plaintiff by removing him from his position as Health and Safety Officer, following an argument in which the Plaintiff had wanted answers to some serious H&S issues. The MD claimed under oath that he never removed him.
However, as I was a company director, I had been copied in on an email sent by the MD to an outsourced Human Resources Consultancy, in which, he stated, that now 'X' (the Plaintiff) was no longer the H&S Officer.
The email, confirmed to me, that the Plaintiff was telling the truth and that the MD had lied under oath.
When under questioning, I acknowledged there was an email that spoke in the past tense, the company's barrister claimed it was privileged information, the panel chairman ruled the evidence inadmissible. The Plaintiff lost his case.
To this day, I cannot fathom out how justice was seen to be done. How is it right under such circumstances that evidence to prove without doubt is not allowed to be used because it's privileged information.
Was this in your opinion, wrong?