SULEYMAN KIRIK APELLANT v OKTAY LTD [2004] UKEAT 0075
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant Mr F Lefevre, Solicitor Of- Quantum Claims Employment Division 70 Carden Place Queens Cross ABERDEEN AB10 1UP For the Respondents Mr N Ramsay, Solicitor Of- Messrs Anderson Shaw & Gilbert Solicitors 20 Church Street INVERNESS IV1 1ED LORD JOHNSTON: This is an appeal from a decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting in Inverness following upon this Tribunal remitting the matter back for consideration of compensation against a finding of unfair dismissal.[2]Mr Lefevre, for the appellant employee, submitted that the approach of the Tribunal was perverse inasmuch that they had restricted any award of compensation to two weeks' pay to reflect the period which the Tribunal assessed, obviously as a speculation over which discussions about wage cuts might have taken place before the appellant rejected any such suggestion on that hypothesis.[3]We do not consider the Tribunal's approach can be regarded as so flawed as to be categorised as perverse. It seems to us that the approach adopted by the Tribunal was one they were entitled to take against the background of the financial chaos of the business, and, the arrival of a further employee by reason of the departure of the manager temporarily to Turkey, was nothing to the point. Whatever else the Tribunal might have done, we consider what they did do was at least a permissible option and we will not interfere. This appeal is therefore dismissed.