IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

(Faukona PJ)

Civil Case No. 3 of 2015

BETWEEN:
ROSE DAWEA BOAPE 
Appellant

AND: 
SOLOMON ISLANDS TOBACCO CO. LTD 	
First Respondent

AND:
TRADE DISPUTE PANEL
Second Respondent

Date of Hearing:  	  22nd August 2016

Date of Judgment:  28th October 2016

Mr M. Tongarutu for the Appellant
Mr S. Lepe for the First Respondent
No one attends on behalf of the Second Respondent

JUDGMENT ON APPEAL FROM TRADE DISPUTE PANEL

Faukona PJ:  The Appellant was a complainant in an Unfair Dismissal Case No. UDFA of 2012, heard by the Trade Dispute Panel, which subsequently made a finding on 29th December 2014 stating that the Appellant’s dismissal was not unfair. She now appeals against that finding pursuant to Section 13 of Trade Dispute Act. Notice of appeal and grounds of appeal were filed on 9th January 2015 in this court.

	Background facts:	
		
2.	 The Appellant was employed by the first Respondent since 29th May 1993, as an assistant accountant. Gradually she elevated up through ranks and files and eventually appointed to a position of Operation Finance Executive on 24th September 2008.  Later she was appointed to the post of Marketing Finance Accountant on 28th August 2009, and then held the post of Marketing Finance Executive as of 4th June 2011.	
		
3.	As the Marketing Finance Executive her role profile and key accountabilities were spelled out at paragraph 1, page 60 of the agreed index to the amended record of appeal.  There are twelve (12) key roles and accountabilities; the most relevant ones are (1) work closely with Departmental heads to capture underlying reasons for the state of finance and record in BW reports to drive continuous improvements, (2) to complete General Ledger Reconciliation per agreed responsivity schedule, (3) to complete monthly and quarterly hyperion reports for operations, (4) to deliver changes on SAP with regards to new product launch and (5) to ensure adequate control are in place over materials etc. 	
		
4.	SAP is the software used to record products when produced up to delivery.  Customers receive their orders through duty bond.  From duty bond to duty paid.  Invoicing was used and automatically stock from duty paid will be reduced.  That was the system used at Noro and Auki.	
		
5.	Noro and Auki are specifically pointed out because those are the depots where variance had occurred resulted in incomplete data.	
		
6.	In July 2011, Stock General Ledger Reconciliation was reviewed by the Finance Manager.  He noted there were discrepancies with the figures that were shown by SAP system. The SAP system was checked and identified that inconsistencies were flagged to Suzie Osiramo’s account.  Suzie Osiramo was consulted and she denied making adjustments in the SAP system.  However, she informed the Finance Manager that the Appellant had sought her permission to use her password to enter into the system and adjusted the data.	
		
7.	The Finance Manager further noted that the Appellant had not been reconciling figures from the SAP system and the physical count for several months although they were provided to her.  She had only recorded the figures from the SAP system without the figures from the physical count and entered into the ledger books which indicated that the figures had been reconciled for each month.   	
		
8.	When interviewed the Appellant was informed that the stock reconciliation showed incomplete data and the Appellant was not able to verify the last time she had reconciled finished goods stocks comparing figures from SAP System with records of the physical count.  	
		
9.	It would appear from evidence that the Appellant had well versed with the variance between the figures from the SAP system and records of the physical count, nevertheless she did not report or inform the Finance Manager of the discrepancies and the variances.  In fact she reconciled the ledger books using figure form the SAP system only.	
		
10.	From the discrepancies and variances which allegedly derived from improper management of stocks the first Respondent suffered loss of 106 cartons of tailor made cigarettes and 42 cartoon of twist tobacco which were not accounted for therefore accumulated approximately SBD200,000.00 deficit .	
		
11.	On 21st November 2011 a letter was written to the Appellant outlining the facts of the case and the allegations against her.  There were five allegations altogether and the sixth one was the consequence of the acts alleged, they can be featured as follows: 	
		
	a.	The Appellant failed to ensure adequate control were in place and finished goods stocks as per her role profile operation accountability.	
			
	b.	The Appellant’s stock reconciliation showed incomplete data and she was not able to provide/show the last time she reconciled finished goods:	
			
	c.	The Appellant breached finance procedures when she adjusted the system in order to balance stock without authorisation;  	
			
	d.	The Appellant breached IT codes by using another employee’s password to adjust the system in order to balance stock without authorisation; 	
			
	e.	The appellant did not highlight to management the magnitude of stock variance. 	
		
12.	The allegations as summarise above had placed the Appellant as a contributor to the loss suffered by the first Respondent.	
		
13.	By the last paragraph of the above letter the Appellant was invited to response to the allegations by 1st December 2011.  By 1st December 2011 there was no response, hence, another eight days was given until 9th December 2011.	
		
14.	By a letter dated 15th December 2011, the Appellant finally responded.  She was only responding to the first allegation levelled against her but failed to response to four other allegations.  In short, her response was based on the fact that when the stocks are in the depots, it is the responsibility of the Trade Marketing Representative (TMR) to give an account of the movement of stocks because the ownership has transferred to them.	
		
15.	By a letter dated 20th December 2011 endorsed by the Human Resource Manager, the Appellant was terminated with effect from that date.	
		
16.	On 20 February 2012, the Appellant filed her complaint with the Trade Dispute Panel for unfair dismissal.  On 29th December 2014 the Trade Dispute Panel delivered its finding dismissing the Appellant’s complaint and found the Appellant’s dismissal was not unfair.  Against that finding she now appeals to this Court by filing a notice of appeal on 9th January 2015.	
		
	No response to four allegations:	
		
17.	There were five allegations altogether alleged to have been committed by the Appellant.  They were made known to her by a letter dated 21st November 2011.  The Appellant was invited to make responses.  She had chosen to respond to first allegation only and not the other four. 	
		
18.	By not responding could simply be inferred she had admitted them, hence, not necessary to challenge.	
		
19.	The significant of any response will assist the first Defendant to explicitly determine the case before it.  In the absence of full response, the first Defendant had to consider one response against five allegations.  In reality, the facts the Appellant provided in her response were the only facts available to rebut the entire allegations.  From that scenario, it could possibly be so that the Appellant’s case was weak with insufficient facts to consider. Had she responded well and in full, the first Respondent would have considered an appropriate and relevant solution that will equate and justify a case before it. 	
		
 20.        	In spite of the circumstances surrounding the Appellant’s case, the complaint filed with the Trade Dispute Panel (TDP) seemed to comprise the Appellant’s grievances in respect of all the allegations laid against her.  In my respectful opinion, the TDP has the right to omit any evidence in support of other allegations which the Appellant had failed to respond to when the privilege was given and invited to do so.  This is important because the complaint was made against the employer’s decision for terminating the Appellant’s employment contract.  The decision to terminate was based on the availability and relevant facts.  I must accept that was the scenario in this case.  	
		
	Grounds of appeal:	
	Grounds 1 and 2:	
		
21.	I will deal with these two grounds jointly.  Both seem to carry the argument that the TDP erred in not considering the Appellant’s sworn statements and submissions that supported her case. As a result the Appellant was not afforded her rights to be heard.	
		
22.	On the outset the Appellant prefer to estrange the facts in the sworn statements and the submissions.  I would say submissions are arguments in summation normally derive from facts in the sworn statements; there ought not to be two or being separated.  Omission of one may render the other demise or impracticable on equitable grounds.	
		
23.	The argument advance by the Counsel for the Respondent is that the appeal grounds are equivalently vague and too general. They do not make reference to which statements the grounds relate to, and relevant evidence in such statements which apply to a particular issue. In furtherance, he submits there is no specification as to which submissions were omitted, and issues to which such omissions related to in the findings.	
		
24.	I have read the grounds thoroughly and the written submissions attached to the appeal; not forgetting the response as well.  I find that grounds 1 and 2 appear as an introductory passage to the whole entire appeal.  I agree they are vague and general.  	
		
25.	In the case of Lama V NDB Investment Limited the Court define the words “briefly but specifically”, which mean the appeal ground must make grammatical and legal sense and intelligible.  If it is alleged that a judgment is against the evidence or weight of the evidence, and if it is alleged that the judgment is wrong in law, the notice must specify with particularity the ground relied on to demonstrate the specific reasons which the judgment is alleged to be wrong in law –see also Pacific Equities & Investment v Goledu.	
		
26.	Whilst the grounds are too vague and general in their grammatical construction, without specific references to sworn statement and paragraphs of the submissions, the Panel did make references to the Appellant’s statement in its finding.  To deny the truth cannot be accepted.  Further still, the notice of appeal failed to point out which particular paragraphs in the submissions were omitted, or which particular point of law the Panel failed or omitted to consider – see Section 13 of the Trade Dispute Act and Goledu case above.	
		
27.	Rule 16.66 states that an appeal shall not be succeed merely because of misdirection or the improper reception or rejection of evidence unless in the opinion of the Court substantial wrong or miscarriage has occurred.	
		
28.	In the current case the two grounds failed to address the requirements by way of reference by specification. In the case of SINUW v Aba Corporation,  it was held that Order 60 Rule 1(4) of the 1964 Rules, gave the power to the court to strike out any grounds that is “vague or general in terms or which discloses no reasonable ground..,” an appeal not on ground of law, can be regarded as disclosing no reasonable ground of appeal”, see case of Burgess V Stanford Hotel, Ipili Porgera Investment Ltd V Bank of South Pacific. I find in this instant case no substantial wrong or omission committed, and the appeal grounds are out of proper context therefore, I must dismiss both grounds (1) & (2) accordingly.    	
		
	Ground 3 (a): 	
		
29.	This ground alleges that the panel erred in placing reliance on allegations which the Appellant had disproved.  Under this ground  	
	submissions are intended to challenge allegations 3, 4, and 5.  I have to reiterate again that initially the Appellant had failed to respond or challenge those allegations.  In the absence of such it was taken to reflect she did not deny them. It was after she responded that the firs Respondent decided to terminate her employment.	
		
30.	In any cause, I will deal with it.  In the Appellant’s submissions the Counsel refer to pages 49, 50 and 51 of the amended record of appeal which formed the foundation of the Panel’s findings.  Those pages, according to the submissions, contain paraphrasing of allegations 3, 4 and 5 against the Appellant, in which the Panel accepted what were said by the first Respondent and ignored the evidence of the Appellant to disprove the three (3) allegations. 
	
31.	Allegation (3) is the breach of finance procedures when the system was adjusted without authorisation.  The Appellant denies and says the first Respondent is not capable to adjust the SAP system as the technical part of it is controlled from BAT India and BAT Germany. There is no evidence to show how she adjusted the system. 	
		
32.	Frankly, I must say that I am a computer illiterate, and when one speaks of computer and computer system I stuck. However, what I can accumulate from arguments is, I do not think the system was adjusted as may have been elaborated by evidence against the first Respondent. I think they are not talking about the computer system in the technical sense, but they are talking about false reconciliation and manipulation of the record to appear as the account was finally balanced. This is exactly what the Panel meant in its finding at page 52, paragraph 1 of the index to amend the record of appeal. The System may be controlled from Indian or Germany but business activities in Solomon Islands were done by employees who were delegated with job description or role profiles.  Daily entries in the books of accounts are daily done by employees in Solomon Islands. Any changes or adjustment to figures to appear after their entries are wrong or intentionally done for the purpose of concealing irregularities that can be done by employees and no one else. Again I find this appeal ground is out of any merit, lacks meaning and is incompetent and not contextualise, see Karovo V Sibisopere.	
		
	Allegation 4:	
		
33.	Allegation (4) was a breach of IT Code, using another employee’s password to adjust the system in order to balance stock.	
		
34.	Again part of the submissions relates to SAP system, which was controlled by BAT India and BAT Germany. However, the Appellant submits by admitting that SAP System can be accessed but only to correct invoicing mistakes invoicing from wrong locations. 	
		
35.	In a way, Mr Soqoilo during cross examination affirmed that can be done for business continuity where emergency access is permitted for a day or for specific hour only. However, the question to pose is, how long had it been in existence that there was no proper and timely reconciliation; that sales data was accurate to be able to reconcile with SAP on daily and monthly basis?  If the irregularities continue to persist for months and even for a year, then there must be something incorrect or wrong still haunting the system but was concealed.	
		
36.	I accepted the password to access SAP can be shared but in a situation of desperate need using SIM, and obtaining permission from Sydney. Again not for every day or every week use. It occurred only at special situations. But when an imbalance existed for weeks, months or a year, then that should hint a shakeup that something was wrong, someone is playing up with the system.	
		
37.	I find this appeal ground carries no merit. The Submissions in support reinforces no strength at all; in fact it is sloppy, hence I must dismiss this ground accordingly.	
		
	Allegation 5:	
		
38.	The submissions under ground 3 (a) concerns allegation five which reflect that the Appellant failed to highlight to the management the magnitude of stock variance.  	
		
39.	The argument advances by the Counsel for the Appellant is that, normally General Ledger Reconciliation was produced by Manager Finance Executive and then submitted to Finance Manager and then onward submission to the General Manager. The General Ledger Reconciliation contained all relevant informations about stock movements. Therefore, it would be absolutely out of context to allude that the Appellant never reported the stock variances.	
		
40.	The Counsel also refers to the sworn statement of Mrs Palusi who said stock-take of stocks in Noro and Auki was an issue before 2010. Mr Maelaua had shared a similar sentiment that variance at Noro and Auki depots had been common knowledge since 2009. 	
		
41.	Having knowledge of stock variance in Noro and Auki since 2009 or 2010, is one thing, the crux of the matter is, are the informations provided in the Stock General Ledger Reconciliation reflected the truth about stock variances, and whether such situation will continue for the next year or five years. 	
		
42.	If information in the monthly or yearly General Ledger Reconciliation were balanced upon vetting by Finance Manager before onward forwarding, the question to ask is were those figures not manipulated or was the information in the SAP balance with physical Count, so as to produce a fair balance accounting system, and if not, who was responsible for it? This is the crux of the first Respondent’s case. 	
		
43.	To consider those questions it is pertinent to consider this ground together with grounds 3 (c) (d) and (e).  I will do an expository to grounds 3 (b) and 3 (f) later.	
		
	Ground 3 (c) and 3(d):	
		
44.	Further argument by the Counsel for the Appellant is expounded in grounds 3 (c) that stock variance for which the Appellant was dismissed occurred at Noro and Auki, outside of the duty station of the Appellant. 	
		
45.	It is accepted that stock variance occurred at Noro and Auki. The argument posed by the Counsel for the Appellant, who refers to Annexure RDB6, is a confirmation as to location where the variance (loss) occurred, and which the former Finance Manger Mr Soqoilo affirmed the authority of the annexure and that the stock variance occurred mainly in 2009.	
		
46.	The failure in that argument is in fact contrary to the argument by the Appellant. Annexure Exhibit “RDB6” only reflected balance as at 9th December 2011. The Appellant agrees that stock variances occurred way back in 2009 up until April `or May 2011 (paragraph 13(iv) of her sworn statement). The question is, was there a summary of uninvoiced issues and loss of stocks for 2009 and 2010. There is none as it appears, and who could be vested with responsibility to produce. 	
		
47.	I acknowledge the fact that the Appellant was appointed as Marketing Finance Accountant in August 2009, and then elevated to Marketing Finance Executive on 4th June 2011.  The Common responsibilities, inter alia, as provided for in the role profiles are (1) ensure adequate control exist over finished goods stocks with monthly reconciliation to SAP (2) complete monthly and quarterly hyperian reports and (3) complete general ledger reconciliation. 	
		
48.	I am optimistic, that in the circumstance of loss or irregularities, the Appellant was vested with the role to ensure, though stock variance occurred at various points. The Appellant is the final Officer to reconcile the stocks before onward submissions by way of a report. Should there be any irregularities or shortfall or variances she should report to the Finance Manager immediately.	
		
49.	In any event, the Appellant attempt to shift responsibility to others. Mr Lepe argues that information in the SAP is balanced but in fact not, because the Appellant failed to reconcile the SAP with physical count.  The evidence of Christina Palusi (Assistant Marketing Manager) states that the Appellant was responsible for Trade Marketing Representatives (TMR) stationed at Noro and Auki. 	
		
50.	When she took up the post in 2010 she ensured that stock take in the depots were carried out every month, and if they were late she would call to remind them to forward as soon as possible.  For 2010 to 2011 she attested that she received monthly reports from Noro and Auki.  It was during that period the Appellant held two positions culminating overlapping responsibilities, in particular, three roles I have identified above.  	
		
51.	The availability of evidence seems to point to the Appellant who was directly responsible for the failure and no one else. She had also failed to report the magnitude of variance to the next superior office in line. Hence, I must dismiss these two grounds of appeal and allegation 5 as having no merit to decide otherwise.	
		
	Ground 3(e) and 3(f): 	
		
52.	These grounds are pivoted on the allegation that the Appellant had failed to ensure adequate control are put in place over finished goods stocks.  The Appellant denies the allegation as relevant and logic.  She relies on the supporting evidence of Mr. Maelaua who pointed out that the persons who implemented the control measure, failed because the Company Management failed to supervise and guide them.  Further, she argues that the Company’s Management had already put in place adequate control over finished goods stocks.  To support her assertion she refers to Exhibit “RDB3”, “RDB4” and “RDB5”	
		
53.	I have read all the exhibits thoroughly and I agree the Respondent had policies and procedures in place to manage and oversee adequate control over finished goods stocks. I noted as well Exhibit “RDB3” is the finished goods handling policy which involves stock movement procedures and finished goods dispatch procedures. Exhibit RDB4 is the outstation warehouse procedures.  	
		
54.	Whilst those policies and procedures are in place, they cannot be in existence in isolation.  There must be staff assigned to manage, oversea and ensure they are implemented satisfactorily. 	
		
55.	The question to pose is the Appellant one of the staff assigned to ensure policies and procedures are carried out.  The submissions on behalf of the Appellant had diverted the responsibilities to other persons, for instance Mr Kenwood Harry from Noro depot, Wilson Iroi from Auki, Paul Manoa from Auki and Nelson Maki. Apart from those persons, the sworn statement of Mr Maelaua stated that the persons implementing the control measures failed because the Management failed to supervise and guide them.  Therefore, control over finished goods is a collective responsibility of the Respondents EXCO, which comprised of management head of each department. 	
		
56.	On page 74 of the agreed index to amended record of appeal, the Appellant stated in her response to the same question that when the stocks left and return to the premises there are documents accompanied them.  When they are sold they had documents attached to them, and when they are invoiced they should be invoiced against where the stocks are transferred.	
		
57.	The argument by the Counsel for the Appellant seems to advocate a general approach as to the structure and establishment of the Respondent Company.  There is nothing in it that outlines the role profiles as to who is responsible for what area of responsibilities. I agree to the general tenor by the Appellant when she stated in her response during her interview as to when the goods left or return to the premises, or when they are sold there are documents accompanied their transmissions. 	
		
58.	The failure by that submission is that they do not identify a person responsible for reconciling stocks that go out, stocks sold, and stocks return to premises.  That reminds me of what Mr Soqoilo and Mrs Palusi stated in their evidence, which I referred to in paragraphs 47 and 48 above pointing to the Appellant as the Officer responsible to reconcile finished goods.  Therefore the task of ensuring controls over finished goods is solely the responsibility of the Appellant, together with the responsibility of reconciling general ledger as a Marketing Finance Accountant from August 2009, and as a Marketing Finance Executive from 30th June 2011-  see role profiles.	
		
59.	All in all I find there is no merit in these grounds and must be dismissed accordingly.	
		
	Ground 3 (b):	
		
60.	This ground is more or less a reflection of part of the finding by the Trade Dispute Panel in particular as shown in paragraph (1) on page 50 of the agreed index to record of appeal.  The paragraph states, “the Appellant choose to work by entering into SAP information after hours which subsequently concluded that was done in order to conceal false reconciliation manipulating the record to appear as if they were balanced”.  	
		
61.	The Counsel for the Appellant submits that the paragraph defames the personal character and integrity of the Appellant.	
		
62.	The finding by the Trade Dispute Panel as a tribunal was a collective decision and not a defamatory assumption. Paragraph 98 of the Halsbury’s law of England states “that the doctrine of absolute privilege also applies to tribunal recognised by law including statutory tribunal establish to determine industrial differences”.	
		
63.	If the Appellant is aggrieved, the right procedure is to challenge the finding, which the Appellant now contends with. In my humble view, appeal is a remedial process available as priority to resolve any grievances fully. A claim for judicial process is a second option. The effect of my view can be ascertained from Rule 15.3.18 where the Court has to consider, inter alia, whether there is another remedy to resolve the matter fully and directly than a judicial review claim.  The appeal was lodged in time hence a claim for judicial review is not necessary.	
		
64.	In any event, I find this appeal ground is out of context, and that the Trade Dispute Panel is immune by way absolute privilege from defamatory action.  Therefore, this ground should be dismissed as well.	
		
	Ground 4:
Ground 4 (a): 	
		
65.	This ground is partly discussed in paragraphs relate to grounds 3 (d), (e) and (f) which I have dealt with jointly as above. 	
		
66.	The remaining issue therefore concerns the physical reconciling of finished goods stocks.  The Counsel for the Appellant denies any evidence from the Respondent to support allegation (2) and the Appellant denies any responsibility.  But admits the issue raised is owing to lateness in sending stock reports from Noro and Auki (TMRs) including mistake in invoicing and lack of independent stock counts.	
		
67.	I agree when stocks are transferred to outstations as Noro and Auki it is the work of the TMRs in both depots to process invoices and stock in hand reports and then sent to the head office in Honiara. This is where according to the evidence of Mr Soqoilo and Mrs Palusi that the Appellant was the Officer after the Assistant Marketing Manager has received then, she would forward to the Appellant to reconcile and balance the stocks.  	
		
68.	It is not lateness by 5 pm that the SAP system would lock down on a last Friday of every month, and would be opened again probably the following week. Of Course SAP stock reconciliation would show incomplete data and uncertainty in timing, therefore, the option in such circumstances is to do a SAP roll over.  But how often would SAP roll over will continue.  If one month is missed then the following month should be reconciled and balanced. It is uncontentious that the imbalance continued for years not months.  Something must have gone wrong and someone must have been responsible for continuous roll over.  It is my perception that SAP roll over should be for a temporary period and not for months or a year. 	
		
69.	I am convinced by the evidence of Mrs Palusi that she received monthly reports from Noro and Auki since 2010 until 2011 and she submitted to Marketing Finance Executive who is the Appellant. However, if SAP roll over still continued through that period, then for sure the Appellant has directly responsible for it because that was part of her duties.  From August 2009 to 30th June 2011 she was the Marketing Finance Accountant and one of her role profiles was to captured and reconciled on SAP on daily basis. Undoubtedly SAP roll over could have occurred earlier than August 2009. The question is why should it continue to roll over for one year and ten months during the period the Appellant was appointed as Marketing Finance Accountant and who was anticipated to reconcile sales data to SAP. 	
		
70.	I noted material documents list from pages 122 – 128 of the agreed index to amended appeal, that there were discrepancies in inaccurate entries in figures, change of figures and adjustments.  The document list was at 22nd September 2011, three months after the Appellant was appointed as Marketing Finance Executive.  Nevertheless she still maintains to complete General Ledger Reconciliations per agreed responsibilities schedule.  The question ought to be asked, who could have made the adjustments spotted in the document list. Those adjustments were done under the user name of Osiramo and they were entries record for the year 2011, mostly in the first half of the year.  	
		
71.	Those documents were attached to the sworn statement of Mr Soqoilo.  In paragraph 43 of his sworn statement he stated that the Complainant (now Appellant) was attempting to balance the records in SAP using Mrs Osiramo’s password to balance the stock.  In doing so, engaged Mrs Osiramo’s password. In the end, in my illiteracy of accounts, I do not know whether the stocks were balanced. However the purpose of the exhibit was to reflect how the entries were adjusted. 	
		
72.	I find this ground misconceives the role and duty of the 
Appellant to do proper and accurate reconciliation. One of the reasons for her dismissal was due to improper and in accurate reconciliation, and lack of reporting to the Finance Manger, the stock variance had increased. Has she reported immediately after identifying the variances, the continuous trend would have been avoided? I find no merit in this ground therefore dismiss it accordingly.	
		
	Ground 4 (b):	
		
73.	This ground concerns an allegation against the Respondents Ex Co. of wanting someone to take the fall for the stock variance.  The content of this ground seems to allege bad motive by the Respondent in picking the Appellant as a scapegoat for the loss of stocks.	
		
74.	The fact is that, there is no discontentment about stocks variance.  There is no argument that the Respondent had lost stocks to certain value.  It is not the intent that change of staff is necessary so that one who was vulnerable to carry the burden.  There is no evidence to proof bad motive had induced and led to transfer of staff. There was some loss in the business operation by the Respondent, hence, attracted investigations and interviews.  Consequently the Appellant was identified to be responsible for causing variance of stocks through evil motive or negligence of duty.  In any event the Respondent as an entrepreneur must make a decision to uphold the prime aim of the business.	
		
75.

76.	The Appellant was given opportunity but failed to respond to four other allegations, she did for just one.  I must therefore dismiss this ground.
In exercising the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Rule 16.2, and in adopting the useful guideline as a role of an appellate court as expounded in the case of Re B (a child) in particular what Lord Neuberge state at page 53;	
		… where  a trial judge has reached a conclusion on the primary facts, it is only in rare cases such as where the conclusion was (i) which there was no evidence to support (ii) which was based on misunderstanding of the evidence, or (iii) which no reasonable Judge could have reached, that an appellant tribunal will interfere with it”.	
		
77.	In this case, this Court is called upon to deal with the grounds of appeal. The submissions by the Counsel for the Respondent commencing from paragraph 44 to 108 were an assessment of evidence when this case was preceded at the Trade Dispute Panel.  I find they are not really relevant to certain extend but they are useful.	
		
78.	I find the Panel’s finding was based on evidence before it, not base on misunderstanding of evidence, and was not one which no reasonable judge could have reached.	
		
79.	On all the appeal grounds, none of them succeeds, and none of them raise any questions of law.  They are vague and in general terms, therefore ought to be dismissed.  In reaching its finding, the Panel in my opinion did not commit any substantial wrong or any miscarriage of justice was occurred, therefore, I need not intervene in its finding.	
		
80.	The appeal is dismissed in it’s entirely with costs payable to the Respondent.	

		
		
	The Court.