British courts say Santander (the UK bank)

  • breached its own written agreement,

  • was racially motivated,

  • committed unlawful race discrimination,

  • disobeyed formal court orders intended to prevent damage from its actions,

  • caused life changing damage,

  • and didn’t apologise for its wrongdoings.

Its behaviour resulted in the establishment of a new British law.

British courts ruled that Santander (the UK bank) and its Directors and Heads were racially motivated in throwing me out of my job unlawfully.

They also ruled that Santander had breached its own written contract of employment with me by under-paying me thousands of pounds of wages.

Having been found guilty of racial discrimination, Santander then tried to get off the hook by claiming that  British law allows discrimination against people based on their skin colour and, hence, it had done nothing unlawful. But, our courts re-iterated that discrimination against people based on their skin colour is unlawful in Britain and that Santander had acted unlawfully.

In their judgements, our courts highlighted that the Santander Directors and Heads had failed to perform properly the duties placed upon them by British statutes and policies.  

They highlighted that one of those Directors, namely Steven Oon, had disclosed to them that he was paid discretionary annual bonuses of around £450,000 in addition to his salary.  

Of another of those Heads, namely Nigel Hopkins, our courts highlighted that the testimony he gave to them under oath was ‘contradictory’, ‘inconsistent’, and ‘changing’.  In ordinary layman words, he lied while under an oath taken solemnly to serve our courts truthfully.

Our courts saw it necessary to highlight that after they had established formally that Santander had acted unlawfully and committed wrongs, Santander made no apology.  

That is, Santander failed to apologise when the basis for an apology had been firmly established by our courts.

Having been found guilty of wrongdoing, Santander then spent years trying to avoid remedying the damages that it had caused. 

In an attempt to remedy that damage, our courts ordered Santander to re-employ me (thereby save me from suffering loss and save it from having to pay Financial Compensation). Re-employment is the primary remedy in British law.  However, Santander refused outright to re-employ me – the initial reason it gave for its refusal was because I had stood up to its wrongdoings.

Our courts highlighted Santander’s disobedience of the court orders and formally recorded that it had disobeyed them without any good cause.

Santander thus forced our courts to proceed to the secondary remedy in British law, that of Financial Compensation.  There, our courts concluded that Santander’s racially motivated behaviour had inflicted life changing damage on me by destroying and ending my career. Santander had told the courts that it was quite reasonable to think that its behaviour would destroy and end my career.

Our courts determined in monetary terms the amount of damage Santander had caused. Santander conceded the fact that it had caused the said amount of damages.  

For years, Santander argued to our courts that it should not have to pay me any compensation at all for the damage it had inflicted. It even tried to float the idea that I was to blame for its racially motivated unlawful acts and for the ensuing destruction of my career and the loss I suffered. Our courts rejected all of Santander’s arguments.  They clarified that I was in no way to blame and that I had elected to be reinstated, which would have stopped damage from ensuing from its wrongdoings.  They clarified that Santander and its Directors were the only wrongdoers here.  

Then, they ordered Santander to pay substantial financial compensation to remedy some (as much as the law could enforce) of the total damage it had caused.  It paid the amount the courts ordered and chose not to put right the balance of the damages, which it had conceded it had caused and which would have been avoided if it had obeyed our courts orders.  

Santander’s proven wrongdoings in this case are documented in British court records and judgements, which are available to the public to view (see the legal case Chagger vs Santander & Hopkins).  

Furthermore, Santander’s and its officers’ conduct was so unprecedented that it made British legal history, causing our courts to create a significant new employment law (click here for details) which deters employers from discriminating on the various forms of discrimination (Racial, Sex, Age, Disability, etc.) and further protects victims who have suffered discrimination.

Please note that any views I expressed are mine alone.  Neither nor I are affiliated with Santander nor any other parties mentioned. Santander has informed me that it and its officers may take serious action against me if I say anything untrue or unfair about the affair that causes them a loss of reputation. On 29 April 2019, Santander informed me not to display or refer to its branded names, trademarks, nor logos on this website, nor elsewhere, as it is the legal and legitimate owner of them.  Please also note that Santander was formerly known as Abbey National.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s