[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Link House Magazines Ltd v. Porter [1999] UKEAT 1198_99_1111 (11 November 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1198_99_1111.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1198_99_1111

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	MR W DIAMOND (Consultant) Heald House Cottage Heald House Road Leyland Lancashire PR5 2JA


 


JUDGE WILKIE QC: This is an appeal by Link House Magazines from an interlocutory decision of the Employment Tribunal. The decision arising out of a hearing on 19th August 1999 and the decision being promulgated on 23rd September 1999.

1. There is arranged for 25th and 26th November 1999 a hearing primarily, it appears, in respect of liability in Mr Porter's claim for a finding of unfair dismissal.
2. On 19th August for reasons related to the presentation of the applicant's case, the Employment Tribunal adjourned the hearing until 25th and 26th November and refused an application made by the applicant for discovery, inspection or interrogation of his attempts to mitigate his loss and/or obtain alternative employment.
3. The Employment Tribunal relied both on the principles set out in case of Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Clinch [1981] ICR 752 together with what they had heard from both sides, including Mr Porter, at the hearing.
4. Mr Diamond in addressing us has given us information about his client's knowledge that Mr Porter very shortly after his dismissal became involved in some capacity with a company with which he had previously been concerned and indeed, may have owned, prior to his employment by the respondent. He has also told us that he has resolutely declined to provide any information to the respondent in respect of his losses since his dismissal.
5. This, being a matter for the exercise by the Employment Tribunal of its discretion, we can only intervene on very limited bases, that is to say, where their discretion has been exercised wrongly in law or in circumstances which can be described as perversely. We have been referred to the case of Clinch and it is clear to us that there is nothing in the approach of the Employment Tribunal which can be faulted as a matter of law, having regard to the principles set out in that case. Furthermore, the Employment Tribunal having seen and heard both parties were in the best possible position to decide what to do in the light of the principles in that case. Whilst therefore it may be that Mr Diamond, from the point of view of the respondent, disagrees with their conclusion, that falls very far short of persuading us that the Tribunal acted in any way perversely and, therefore, that we should in any way interfere with their exercise of discretion.
6. Therefore, we decide that there are no grounds for us to intervene with that exercise of discretion and accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.