[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Carpenter v ABB Industrial Systems Ltd [1997] UKEAT 873_97_0112 (1 December 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/873_97_0112.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 873_97_112, [1997] UKEAT 873_97_0112

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT NEITHER BEING PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


JUDGE HARGROVE QC: This case has a prolonged history. The original case came before the tribunal. There was an appeal to this tribunal and the matter was then sent back to a different tribunal to consider whether or not it was practicable to reinstate the applicant, and the direction of this tribunal that the matter was to be looked at on 10th July 1995. Therefore it was to be looked at as at that date.

The Industrial Tribunal for the second time heard this matter on 30th July 1997. They reached the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable for the respondent to reinstate the applicant an award of compensation having already been made, that tribunal made no further order.

We have been given an extensive number of documents. Mr Carpenter has not appeared before us, he has left because, as I understand it, that he was merely going to rely upon the documents that he has given to us. What these do in short, is to try to retry the issues which were decided as matters of fact before the tribunal when it sat on 18th June 1997.

He lists a number of matters which can only come under the heading of perversity. In our view the tribunal dealt with the matter in the only way it could. It did not admit any evidence it should not have admitted; it assessed matters which were before it; it took into account all the relevant matters, and it informed itself of the relevant authority in Port of London Authority v Payne & Others [1997] IRLR.

In those circumstances, the decision cannot be attacked on any of the grounds which have been suggested by the appellant, and this matter is dismissed.