United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1994] UKEAT 442_94_1905

Appeal No. EAT/442/94

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 19 May 1994

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON

MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP

MR G W WRIGHT MBE

---

MR P TEMPLE          APPELLANT

EASTERN COUNTIES OMNIBUS CO LTD          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant NO ATTENDANCE BY OR

REPRESENTATION ON

BEHALF OF THE

APPELLANT

For the Respondents NO ATTENDANCE BY OR

REPRESENTATION ON

BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON: Mr Temple made an application to an Industrial Tribunal complaining that he had been unfairly dismissed from his employment as at the 12 November 1993 by the Eastern Counties Omnibus Company Limited. His IT1 was presented to the Tribunal on the 10 February 1994. The Respondents put in their IT3 promptly thereafter and the matter was originally listed for hearing on the 8 April 1994. On the 15 March the employers, having received notification that the case was listed for hearing, asked if the matter could be adjourned to another date because of problems with witnesses who would not be available on certain dates, including the 8 April. Therefore they supplied some dates to the Tribunal and the Tribunal acceded to their application that the matter should be relisted for hearing.

We deduce from what the learned Industrial Tribunal Chairman said in his ruling of the 18 May 1994 that the new date was fixed after consulting the parties, in other words, we deduce from what he has said, that the Applicant, Mr Temple himself, was consulted about the new date which was fixed for Friday the 27 May. On the 9 May Mr Temple made an application to the Tribunal, noting that unfortunately the case had not been settled as he had hoped it would have been, and he asked for a postponement of the hearing and said that the listing incorporates the Respondents inconvenient dates, and those of the many witnesses that he hoped to call. At the bottom of the letter he indicates various inconvenient dates; presumably he was saying that the date of the 27 May 1994 was also inconvenient.

On the 18 May the learned Industrial Tribunal Chairman refused the postponement request saying that:

"There has already been one postponement. The present date was fixed after consulting the parties and is more than 28 days after the original hearing. The respondent objects to the postponement. There is still 10 days to the hearing."

It is against that decision that Mr Temple appeals and what he says to us in the document, begging us to grant his appeal, is a whole series of reasons as to why we should accede to his appeal. He wants to get legal representation, he is having problems of a personal nature, stemming from his summary dismissal, he is working much longer hours than he had in the past, he needs to find a date where his witnesses can attend, and so forth.

It seems to us that the decision to adjourn, or not adjourn a case is very much a matter within the discretion of the Industrial Tribunal and we see no reason why we should interfere with a decision of the learned Chairman that I have referred to, recorded in the letter of the 18 May 1994. It is of course open to an Industrial Tribunal, having refused an application for an adjournment to reconsider the matter if any further application is made to them on the day of the hearing and we would observe that, of course, at the hearing since the dismissal is admitted, the burden of proof as to the reason for the dismissal will lie upon the Respondent employers who will therefore have to give their evidence first and it may be that the Industrial Tribunal Chairman would wish to reconsider the matter, if at that time, Mr Temple was indicating that he was in some kind of embarrassing difficulty. But for our part, we see no reason why we should depart from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal Chairman on this matter. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.