United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 521_93_2402

Appeal No. EAT/521/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 24 February 1994

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC

MR W MORRIS

MISS D WHITTINGHAM

---

H G COMPUTER SERVICES LTD          APPELLANTS

MR J D'ARCY          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants MR I M GRANT

(EMPLOYEE RELATIONS

CONSULTANT)

Grant Associates

Employee Relations

Consultants

103 Arnos Grove

Southgate

London N14 7AG


 


JUDGE HARGROVE OBE QC: The point which is taken in this case arises from the fact that the Tribunal, by a decision promulgated on 25 May 1993, elected to limit the period when there was to be enquiry into the loss to 1 December 1992.

The objection is, that the employers suspect, obviously, that (and indeed in has been said specifically) by some method of manipulating income, the employee has received sums of money after that date which ought to have been taken into account in computing the loss. Various cases are quoted but it is quite plain that Fentiman's case, although it did deal with cases where there had been some intervening employment, nonetheless set out a principle of law. The case is made more difficult from the point of view of the Appellant because it is quite clear that onerous discovery was being sought. The correspondence, which shows a degree of irritation on both sides, shows throughout that this discovery was being pursued. Eventually an Order was made by the Chairman of the Tribunal to the effect that the date of the 1 December was to be the date up to which discovery was to be given and it says specifically that the Applicant would not be able to claim for any greater loss which occurred thereafter.

That Order was received by the Appellants here and although they said that their view of the appropriate calculation span was unchanged although they still wished to reserve the right to pursue a detailed fishing expedition into the earnings of the Applicant, nonetheless no appeal was made against that Order at all. As a result the matters before the Tribunal were limited by the discovery. Application was made to alter the date and it was refused. Bearing those matters in mind it is difficult to see where the error of law of the Tribunal occurred.

In those circumstances, our view of this Preliminary Hearing there is no point of law and the appeal fails.