BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Grifith v. Post Office [2000] EAT 0511_99_1505 (15 May 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/0511_99_1505.html Cite as: [2000] EAT 511_99_1505, [2000] EAT 0511_99_1505 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON
MR K EDMONSON
MR I EZEKIEL
APPELLANT | |
RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
For the Appellant | MR J CLAY (or Counsel) MS A OGUNDIMU 2 Livingstone Lodge Carlton Gate Harrow Road Maida Vale London W9 3RL |
For the Respondent | MR R WHITE (of Counsel) The Post Office Legal Services Impact House 2 Edridge Road Croydon CR9 1PJ |
HIS HONOR JUDGE WILSON
Judge Hicks goes on at page 8 (F) of the judgment.
"It seems to us that the words in paragraph 18, having heard the Applicant give evidence …we can see that he has some way to go in acquiring them." makes clear that one of the reasons, although not the only reason for the Tribunal's conclusion was its own assessment of the Appellant not just as to the credibility of his testimony in the witness box, but also as to his personality and his aptitude for the managerial positions."
"That point is perhaps really two points (1) the question whether the Tribunal's assessment of that kind is properly to be taken into account at all. (2) whether even if it is the Tribunal does not betray that it is substituting its own judgment by the words "we can see he has some way to go in acquiring them" – both, it seems to us, raise arguable grounds of appeal. We do not of course reach any conclusion as to what the result of such an appeal showed be, but they are points which we consider the Appellant should be entitled to raise."