MS MARTHA AKERS v NORMA WHICKER [2000] UKEAT 342_00_1107
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MS PRITCHARD (of Counsel) Instructed by: Mr C A Purnell Plumstead Community Law Centre Ltd 105 Plumstead High Street Plumstead London SE18 1SB JUDGE WILCOX: This is an appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Ashford (Kent) on 17 January 2000. The criticism is levelled at the remedy aspect of the claim, namely as to the compensation award that was made that the Respondent was ordered to pay to the Applicant in this case. The Applicant was employed as a Care Assistant for a disabled woman, that disabled woman being the Respondent of this appeal, and also someone who cross appealed on her own account. The brief factual basis is this: The Respondent to the appeal is disabled. Her aitken was eroded, she could afford to employ the regime of Care Assistants that she had and had she gone through the proper procedure and offered a lower sum, which doubtless would have been refused, she would not have found herself in the position of having an award made against her.[2]So far as the Appellant was concerned, it is for the Appellant, of course to mitigate a loss, that is a general principle in any question of compensation or damages. The Tribunal heard evidence they came to their conclusion at paragraph 6. They briefly stated their reasons. These are matters wholly within the knowledge and competence of Tribunal's whom Industrial juries, sitting at first instance. We think that there is an adequacy of evidence there disclosed and we think there is no arguable case that they were perverse in their finding as to mitigation. Coming to the other appeal, that is the cross appeal of Miss Whicker. The decision we accept for the – upon her in her unfortunate state, particularly her financial state.[3]We have a great deal of sympathy as to that, but we can see nothing wrong in the approach of the Tribunal here, that would warrant us giving leave for this matter to go to a full hearing, either as to disclose an error of law or an inadequacy of fact, leading to a perverse decision. The appeals and the cross appeal stand dismissed.