Skorupskis Law

Skorupskis Law

Skorupskis Law

Skorupskis Law

Are the Scottish Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal fraudulent?Did the Tribunals protect the’royal’university of St Andrews by burying evidence?

Here is the story with some of the main characters…

Roy Dilley refused to give evidence to an employment tribunal because he was afraid of the consequences. The University of St Andrews subsequently promoted him to a readership and then to a professorship. At an earlier internal university meeting Mr Dilley also refused to say anything about intolerable behaviour he had complained about bitterly (and with a certain amount of bravado sabre-rattling) for years – see The most disgraceful meeting… Had Mr Dilley spoken up at that meeting things might have turned out very differently. The subsequent degradation of the university by Dilley’s ‘superiors’ and those they chose to represent them depended on the silence of Dilley and certain others.

Peter Clark lied to an employment tribunal concerning a surreptitious offer he claimed that the University was prepared to make to the appellant. He told the appellant that the University would pay him seven months’ salary if he left the University. There was corroborating evidence regarding this from another witness. In the tribunal, Mr Clark denied having said what he had indeed said. The University of St Andrews subsequently promoted him to a professorship.

John Skorupski is fairly typical of a certain breed of managerial professors in universities these days. To see why he has the dubious honour of having this website named after him

Brian Lang is the Principal of the University of St Andrews. Mr Lang was accused at an employment tribunal of thuggish bullying, concealment of evidence, and suppression of academic freedom. More information can be found at The “abusive and humiliating” behaviour of [Mr Lang].

Ian Truscott was the barrister who represented the University of St Andrews at an employment tribunal and subsequent appeal hearing. A QC, he was paid very large sums of money and used every trick at his disposal to present a tissue of misrepresentations and to delay proceedings. Is such behavior not gross contempt of court? Conveniently for Mr Truscott, his behaviour was very substantially aided by both the Chairman of the Tribunal and the judge presiding over the appeal.

Mark Sischy was the Chairman of the tribunal. Disgracefully, the tribunal hearings were spread out over a year and the judgment took a further eight months to produce. When it appeared all but a single comment from the evidence of the appellant’s witnesses had simply disappeared from the record. Mr Sischy was subsequently relieved of his duties because of alcohol problems. There is very good reason to doubt that he wrote the judgment.

Anne Smith is otherwise known as The “Honourable” Lady Smith and presided over the appeal into Mr Sischy’s judgment. At a preliminary hearing she ordered that a transcript of the evidence of the appellant’s main witness be produced. When the appellant’s barrister attempted to show that the main points of that evidcnce had simply been buried by Mr Sischy, she was prevented from proceeding by the “Honourable” lady and thus from presenting the single most important plank of the appeal. Apparently the “Honourable” Lady Smith did not think it appropriate to tell the appellant’s barrister that Mr Sischy had been removed from his post at a critical time in relation to the appellant’s judgment. Not surprisingly, she dismissed the appeal that she had so signally curtailed.