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 £5, 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 >> Satsavia v Automotive Products Plc [1993] UKEAT 766_92_2202 (22 February 1993) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1993/766_92_2202.html Cite as: [1993] UKEAT 766_92_2202 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
I N T E R N A L
At the Tribunal
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE B HARGROVE OBE QC
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Revised
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MR A S SATSAVIA
(Appellant in Person)
JUDGE HARGROVE QC: Mr Satsavia was dismissed on the basis of conduct. He had purchased a barrel phosphate plant from his employers some time before, that plant also did a process known as jig phosphate. The employers no longer carried out any work apparently in barrel phosphate work but they did a small amount of jig phosphate work. The problem which arose was that the employers came to the conclusion, first of all that Mr Satsavia had been approaching customers of the employers, and secondly, had been utilising the confidential information of what was being charged out to customers by the employer. Upon that basis, in spite of the fact that Mr Satsavia had been 22 years with the Company he was dismissed. There was an appeal and that came to nothing and from that he came to the Industrial Tribunal.
The Industrial Tribunal first of all rejected that there had been any question of a disguised redundancy, and as a matter of fact they are entitled to do that. They then reached the conclusion that whatever view they would have taken of the facts they considered Mr Hill, who had been dealing with the appeal, had formed the view that Mr Satsavia had shown undue interest in customers' work, had learnt something about the prices and used that information for setting up in direct competition to the Company.
The Tribunal reached the view that that decision to dismiss was within the range of responses of a reasonable employer. There was an objection of course by Mr Satsavia that the facts are wrong, but those facts are not matters for us. He also has objected that Mr Hill should not have been involved in the appeal process, that was a matter which also was considered in detail by the Industrial Tribunal.
All the matters he has raised before us today have been matters of fact, there is no point of law involved in this case. Unfortunately, this Tribunal can only deal with points of law and in those circumstances this appeal is dismissed
