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 >> Kendrick v Wirral Hospital NHS Trust [1997] UKEAT 1031_97_1909 (19 September 1997)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/1031_97_1909.html
Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 1031_97_1909
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MR D A C LAMBERT
MRS D M PALMER
MR A J KENDRICK APPELLANT
WIRRAL HOSPITAL NHS TRUST RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
INTERLOCUTORY HEARING
| For the Appellant | NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS |
| For the Respondents |
MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an urgent appeal which has been brought before us by Mr Kendrick. He says that the Industrial Tribunal at Liverpool have perversely failed to grant him an adjournment of his case which is due to start on Monday. It is now 3.25 pm on Friday afternoon that we are considering this matter, this being the first opportunity for the court to do so, having instituted its emergency procedures.
This is an unfair dismissal claim brought by Mr Kendrick against his former employers. The dismissal is admitted. It will therefore be for the employers to establish the reason for the dismissal and in the normal course of events we would anticipate that the proceedings would commence with a presentation by the employers of their evidence.
Mr Kendrick says that one of his witnesses, whom he appears reluctant to name, is not going to be available on 22 and 23 September. That was the basis on which he asked for an adjournment. The employers for their part are also seeking to have the Originating Application struck out on the basis that Mr Kendrick has failed to comply with one of the Tribunal orders in relations to discovery of tape recordings.
It seems to us obvious that the case must go ahead on 22 September, but of course Mr Kendrick will be in a position to renew any application for an adjournment to the Industrial Tribunal on that occasion. We have no doubt that the Industrial Tribunal would be slow to refuse to grant an adjournment if satisfied that there was a relevant witness who could give relevant evidence before concluding their hearing and arriving at their decision. It may well be that the whole of the next two working days can profitably be used in this case in any event.
We are not of the view that the conduct of the Industrial Tribunal can be described as perverse. These interlocutory decisions as to whether to grant or refuse an adjournment are difficult ones for the Industrial Tribunal. We do not consider that they have erred in law in the way they have exercised their discretion in this case.
Accordingly, we dismiss Mr Kendrick's appeal.