Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Bennett v Robert Guy Services [1996] UKEAT 1184_96_0111 (1 November 1996)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1184_96_0111.html
Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1184_96_111, [1996] UKEAT 1184_96_0111
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR R H PHIPPS
MR R TODD
MISS M BENNETT APPELLANT
ROBERT GUY SERVICES
RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
| For the Appellant | MR D RAMA (Friend) |
| For the Respondents | MR I FLETCHER (Solicitor) Messrs Lovell White Durrant Solicitors 65 Holborn Viaduct London EC1A 2DY |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The Industrial Tribunal at Croydon granted an application that Miss Bennett's case should be adjourned. In exercising their discretion they obviously took into account all the circumstances, that is, the reasons for the adjournment being advanced on behalf of the former employers, the contrary reasons advanced on behalf of Miss Bennett. This was listed as an appeal against that decision.
Miss Bennett's representative has quite realistically accepted that the hearing date which was adjourned, namely 4 November, could not be reinstated by any order that we could make today, because that would not enable the case justly to go ahead on that day. However, the circumstances of Miss Bennett are pressing. She is looking after her father who, we are told and accept, is terminally ill. His illness is having a significant impact on her own state of health. She is currently unemployed and is in a distressed condition.
It seems to us quite clear, as both parties representatives have accepted, that this case should be listed for a hearing as soon as possible and certainly before the end of the year. So far as the employers are concerned, any date after 18 November would be acceptable to them. That is acceptable to Mr Rama. I therefore would respectfully urge the Regional Chairman to give this case priority because of the particular circumstances which apply.
Mr Rama tells us that he has had an indication from the Tribunal that the earliest date they can accommodate this case would be next year. We would regard that as unsatisfactory in the circumstances, assuming that the Industrial Tribunal, despite its heavy work burden, could fit this case in before that time.
Accordingly we make no order upon this appeal other than to dismiss it with the expression of hope that I have given, that this case should be dealt with as quickly as possible.