Interesting view. I think, however, they can just rule on errors of law and how those errors have scaffolded into incorrect decisions.
I think the most logical approach is to treat all the guff as fruit of the poisonous tree, as it were. Ie that the guff is created from the initial
legal errors which then grow and grow.
I don’t think they need to unpack the the whole idiocy.
IANAL so others will have informed views but from a lay perspective it would seem straightforward enough to rule that BOTH respondents 1 & 2 are guilty of harassment given the errors in law, and that the harassment then led to indirect and direct discrimination.
That’s if an intelligent and non-captured EAT judge is appointed.
Kemp clearly has got above himself and thought he could rewrite laws and it is not impossible that another of those sits on the EAT panel. They also might close ranks to protect Kemp and make him look less of an arse and that might skew their thinking.
But I think a stronger motivator will be that they won’t want to face the same ridicule.
They will keep it to errors of law, which seems quite easy on the face of it, and will dismiss with a light touch the findings formed from those errors.
I would hope they would also find opportunity to rip NHSFife a new one with regard to their behaviour as Kemp has not even given them a reprimand.
Behind closed doors, I imagine, is where Kemp will actually be carpeted and we probably won’t get, sadly, to witness that.