United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 195_93_1503

Appeal No. EAT/195/93

I N T E R N A L

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 15 March 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WOOD MC (P)

MR J P M BELL CBE

MRS P TURNER OBE

---

RENTOKIL LTD          APPELLANTS

MR B DEWS          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON

BEHALF OF THE

APPELLANTS

For the Respondent NO APPEARANCE BY OR

REPRESENTATION ON

BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE WOOD (PRESIDENT): We have been asked by Rentokil Ltd who are Respondents in proceedings against the refusal by the Learned Chairman Mr Scott Wolstenholme to vacate and adjourn a hearing.

The facts are set out helpfully in a letter of 10 March this year to this Tribunal by the Learned Chairman. We are extremely grateful to him for the way that this has been set out and he explains how he reached his decision, indeed in paragraph 12 of that letter he says this:

"I was informed by the listing section that if postponed the case could not be re-listed before June. Weighing in the balance the prejudice that would be caused to the applicant by a lengthy adjournment with the inconvenience that would be caused to the witness if he had to re-arrange his holiday I refused the request for an adjournment. I did not accept that to refuse the application would prejudice the ability of the respondent to defend the case."

The situation had been a difficult one and no doubt the Learned Chairman took all the history of the matter into account. There had at one stage been agreement by the Applicant's solicitors. There had been changes of mind. It was a balancing exercise which the Learned Chairman had to carry out in the exercise of his discretion. It may be that the witness whom Rentokil Ltd wanted to call will eventually have to change his holiday and eventually it may be that the Company will need to recompense him for that. However the matter is arranged we can see no reason to indicate and decide that the Learned Chairman erred in law on the Wednesbury Rules such that his decision and his exercise with discretion should be interfered with.

It follows therefore that this appeal is dismissed.