United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 243_93_3103

Appeal No. EAT/243/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 31 March 1993

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE J PEPPITT QC

MR D O GLADWIN CBE

MISS A P VALE

---

GLOWTOLL LTD          APPELLANTS

MR M R SLIMMING          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


 


JUDGE PEPPITT QC: This is an appeal from a decision of one of the Chairmen of the Leeds Industrial Tribunal made on 30 March 1993 refusing the Appellant's Application for the adjournment of a hearing of the Respondent's Application fixed for 5 April and anticipated to be completed within that day.

The grounds of the appeal can be stated shortly. The first ground is that the Respondent Mr Slimming, by his solicitors, consented to the adjournment and his written consent was before the Chairman when the decision was made. The second ground was that the Appellants' leading Counsel, who has been concerned in the matter and has advised already at some length was unable to appear at Leeds on 5 April but is otherwise engaged in the Chancery Division and it is said it would be prejudicial to the proper presentation of the Appellants' case were they to change Counsel at this stage. The third reason is that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent by the grant of the adjournment because although the case was listed for one day on 5 April, Counsel has now advised that some four additional witnesses will require to be called on the Respondents' behalf and that in those circumstances the case would be likely to last for at least two and probably three days. Accordingly, say the Appellants, no prejudice will be suffered by the Applicant because he will get his decision at broadly the same time whether the case is adjourned part-heard on 5 April for a further hearing or whether the case does not start on the 5th but is adjourned in its entirety to a further hearing.

Finally, say the Appellants, the application before the Leeds Industrial Tribunal is linked with a High Court action brought against them by the Respondent in relation to which one offer has already been made and rejected and a further offer was made yesterday. If that offer is accepted it would effectively dispose of both the High Court action and the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal.

Against that background the Chairman refused the application to adjourn by letter dated 30 March. No reasons were given for the refusal, the decision being in the following terms:

"Request for postponement is refused. This case will proceed on 5 April 1993, as arranged as far back as January 1993. If the case goes part heard, arrangements will be made for continuation at the hearing after consideration of the availability of the parties, and the convenience of the Tribunal."

We are conscious that our jurisdiction to entertain appeals from Industrial Tribunals in interlocutory matters as well as in the case of final decisions, is limited. We can only interfere with the Chairman's exercise of his discretion if we believe his decision is plainly wrong. We have had an opportunity to consider this matter. We have every sympathy for the view which the Chairman took who no doubt was anxious to ensure that with the state of the lists at Leeds there should not be a wasted day and that no doubt in the absence of any other reason was the prime motive for his refusing the application. But in circumstances where the parties agree, where no detriment to the Applicant as a result of a grant of an adjournment has been shown, and for the other reasons set out in the Notice of Appeal, we have come to the conclusion that this is a case where we can interfere.

Accordingly we direct that the application for an adjournment succeeds and that the matter be adjourned to a date to be fixed.