as expressed by His Honour Judge Pugsley in a recent EAT unfair dismissal case:

May we say right away that we consider that one has to be very careful in approaching Employment Tribunal decisions on the basis of tooth‑combing through to find a phrase that is not as felicitous as it could be, or producing criticisms as a sort of subplot in a decision that runs, as this one does, to 20 pages.  Further, we have in mind, although not cited to us (it is now so notorious that it does not need to be cited), the decision of Lord Hoffmann in the House of Lords in Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] UKHL 27 in which the whole House agreed with Lord Hoffmann’s strictures against an appellate court being seduced into applying their own view of the matter on the basis of putting the existing Judgment to an unrealistic, minute, myopic assessment, and, instead of determining the issue as an appellate court should, effectively re‑trying a case on its facts.  For any who wish to see a rather scathing attack on that process, that Judgment stands as a template, and of course it is right, as Lord Hoffmann observed, that there has to be a sense of proportionality between injustice as perceived by individuals and the wider social aims of society, and it is scant justice to encourage faint hopes on appeal as though we can deal with absolute justice in this human world irrespective of the underlying merits.”

We should bear this in mind when considering whether a matter is worthy of appeal or not.