United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 742_95_2107

Appeal No. EAT/742/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 21st July 1995

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUCKEY

MRS P TURNER OBE

MR K YOUNG CBE

---

MS L CORBETT          APPELLANT

BROMLEY NHS TRUST          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MISS M TAYLOR

(of Counsel)

Messrs Southall & Co

32 Grosvenor Gardens

Belgravia

London

SW1W 0DH

For the Respondents NO APPEARANCE BY OR

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


 


MR JUSTICE TUCKEY: This is an appeal from a decision of Chairman of the London (South) Industrial Tribunal who yesterday refused to postpone the hearing of this case which has been fixed for hearing on Monday, 24th July 1995.

The circumstances giving rise to the fixing of the hearing and the appeal to us are as follows. The applicant, Mrs Corbett, complains that she was unfairly dismissed. It is a case of constructive dismissal. She gives the date of her dismissal as 10th February 1995. Her IT1 was filed with the Tribunal on the very possible last day that is to say on 9th May 1995. It is incumbent upon those who make claims to Industrial Tribunals to get on with their cases. The short time limit within which a complaint has to be made emphasises this. The sooner these cases come on for hearing the better. Justice delayed is justice denied.

The respondents contest the claim. On 23rd June 1995 the Tribunal sent out a standard form letter saying that the case had been fixed for hearing on 24th July 1995 at Ashford. It invited application for postponement within 14 days, and notification if the case was likely to last for more than one day.

By letter of 5th July 1995, which is 12 days after the date of that letter, the applicants solicitors wrote, what they subsequently characterised as a short letter, setting out their reasons for postponement. This was a five page letter, which set out the applicants' case at length. It did however say:

"We hereby make an application for postponement and request that the matter be relisted for a 2 day hearing on the grounds that our client, in both Counsel and our opinion, requires expert evidence in relation to finance and medical evidence and a number of witnesses to give evidence in support of her claim of the Respondent having breached the contract."

This was five months after the date of her dismissal after solicitors have come on the scene. By this time, it is incumbent upon applicants to have the evidence which they need in order to support their claim. It is not good enough to turn around when given a date and say `well we must now start preparing our case'. It should have been prepared long ago. Not surprisingly in those circumstances, the Chairman of this Tribunal rejected the application for an adjournment. His letter of which we have copy says that he has refused to postpone the case because the respondent objects. The case has been listed since 23rd June 1995. He considers the issues to be: why did the applicant resign, and was the respondent in breach of contract. We can see nothing wrong with that decision. It raises no question of law for this Tribunal. This appeal is therefore dismissed.

It is of course always open to a party to proceedings to apply for an adjournment to the Tribunal hearing the case itself. I give no encouragement to the applicant here to do that on Monday, or, if she does, any indication as to whether it will meet with success, but that is the route to follow if the applicant is in difficulties. Appeals to this Tribunal against decisions of this kind should not be brought. They do not raise questions of law. The fixing of a date for hearing is essentially a matter for the Tribunal who is to hear the case.