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 >> Aikman v Biotechnology Biological [1999] UKEAT 1459_98_2101 (21 January 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1459_98_2101.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1459_98_2101 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE H WILSON
MR R SANDERSON OBE
MRS R A VICKERS
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
| For the Appellant | DR D P AIKMAN (In Person) |
| For the Respondents | MR D FISHER (Of Counsel) Messrs Tovell & Co Solicitors 55 Dukes Avenue London W4 2AG |
JUDGE H WILSON: This is an appeal by Dr Aikman against the decision on on his Application for Review made to the Tribunal. We have had the benefit of a lengthy written application to this Tribunal and we also have the full reasons which were promulgated by the Employment Tribunal on 18 September 1998.
We began by discussing with Dr Aikman, who appears on his own behalf, the contents of paragraph 3.1 of that decision, wherein the legal position on review is summarised and, in particular, asked whether Dr Aikman agreed that the two parts of Rule 11 which were applicable were the ones dealing with new evidence and the interests of justice. He agreed that that was accurate.
We have therefore considered the decision reached by the Tribunal in the light of those two parts of the Rule and in the context of Dr Aikman's application and his submissions today.
We find that the statement of the law about new evidence and interests of justice was accurately and properly stated by the Chairman and that nothing else is relevant. We also find, at the end of the submissions, that nothing that has been written or said leads us to consider that the decision was flawed. Nothing that Dr Aikman has submitted persuades us that the tests which had to be applied by the Tribunal were not properly and fully applied and there is, therefore, no ground upon which we can disturb the decision and his appeal against the review decision is dismissed.
