queen to bishop 4

File number 5315212: Paul. Evans-McLeod and Telecom New Zealand



We refer to your letter 28 January

Paragraph 4 consul for telecom Mr. John Rooney states that these matters have “previously been the subject matter of a personal grievance which the respondent successfully defended “

This is incorrect as matters relating to "improper process " "lack of good faith" " good process "deception" ‘’ fraud " "defamation" and breech of my human rights where not addressed under the personal grievance , as at that point in time ,the applicant was unaware of the depth of duplicity and dishonesty Telecom had sunk (sunken) to effect my exit via a constructive dismissal

Paragraph 5 the conclusion drawn is erroneous the applicant only wishes to advise the employment court of the relevant new facts now available, gained through the auspices of the privacy commission.(This information was held by Telecom at the time of the hearing but not presented by them.)

The applicant seeks a rehearing now all parties have the relevant facts at hand as the applicant feels the respondents failed in the “good faith tenant “by their failure to bring all RELEVANT INFORMATION to both at the applicants and the authorities notice

Para 7 the claim is not frivolous vexatious or an abuse of process, in fact as fully stated in previous submission the only abuse of process was that ably perpetrated by the respondents client

I do not openly boast that that I lack the means to meet any award against him. If fact I am ashamed and humbled that I for the first time in my life are unable to meet commitments accrued

I was actually restating the fact that the respondent himself alluded to. It is the unintended consequences of the respondent’s client’s actions .The applicant reiterates that the proceedings should be re-opened in light of the new information available

My previous submission was dismissed with the decision being "statue based"

This is the same approach being taken here. There is reference to following the correct process, and addressing the matter via the employment court.



A view could be taken, that should the employment matter that gave rise to this dispute , be based on possible criminal acts of fraud and deception, that those matters should first be addressed in a criminal court, as that judgment, would determine any following course of action.



There is an irony in all this, there was a failure of process and procedure in their dealings with me, their defence is to claim lack of correct process by myself.



As stated in my submission,

"The approach appears to be, micro management, designed to stress the individual to the extreme, wait until the individual is exhausted mentally and physically offer mediation and then close all proceedings and legal liabilities with a mediation settlement."




At least in that I was accurate..It is also a timely warning for anyone involved in any disciplinary proceedings with Telecom. As this has been their consistent successful approach in the past

Questions arise, unbidden in my perusal of this.

Has any one asked for the complaint letter?

If it is unable to be produced...

What is the response that displays integrity?

What is the response that will address the cost implications of being embroiled in vexatious litigation, that they are seriously concerned about...?

The solution (combined with the cost implications) remains entirely in their hands the options are continue to defend the indefensible or produce the letter



Yours faithfully

Paul Evans-McLeod