Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 52 MELVILLE STREET, EDINBURGH, EH3 7HF At the Tribunal On 1 June 2006 Before
(1) EDINBURGH PHARMACEUTICAL PROCESSES LTD (2) DR S NEWLANDS APPELLANTS DR A P LOTHIAN RESPONDENT
Taking account of written submissions, Dr McKinlay's issue, reasons for accepting the claimant's evidence, dealing with conflict in claimant's evidence re: cause of hearing loss, and Dr Rodger's evidence:
But that comment seems to be at odds with the Chairman's advice that the respondents' then solicitors withdrew from acting on 2 September. It seems unfair to accuse the second respondent of ignoring advice in those circumstances.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.