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 >> Myers v Hertfordshire County Council [1997] UKEAT 880_97_2907 (29 July 1997)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/880_97_2907.html
Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 880_97_2907
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KIRKWOOD
MR D A C LAMBERT
MRS M E SUNDERLAND JP
MR A P MYERS APPELLANT
HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
| For the Appellant | THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRESENT OR REPRESENTED |
| For the Respondents | THE RESPONDENTS NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED |
MR JUSTICE KIRKWOOD: We have been asked to consider as a matter of urgency an appeal on paper in an interlocutory matter from an Industrial Tribunal in pending litigation between Mr Myers and the Hertfordshire County Council. It appears that there is due to be heard tomorrow at the tribunal at Bury St Edmunds an interlocutory matter, although we do not know what the details of that are.
The information we have is that the County Council has asked a Chairman to postpone the hearing and he has agreed to do so on the grounds that the County Council, who are the respondents, need time to collate evidence pursuant to recent legal advice and that it is in the interests of justice that such postponement be allowed for that purpose.
Mr Myers is unhappy about that. He has written a letter which has been faxed to us in which he says that he has been under very great stress due to this litigation. It spoiled last Christmas. He has done all he can to settle the case but to no avail. He thinks that the County Council have been evasive. He had written to the County Council Solicitor saying what he was going to present to the tribunal. He thinks that the information the County Council say that they need is readily available to them. More topically, he says "I have had to cancel work tomorrow to attend for which I will not get paid, and I have had to make overnight accommodation arrangements.". He had been working all weekend to gather his papers so that they could be presented in an acceptable manner. If the hearing was postponed until after August then that will be after his holiday with his family which he would hardly be able to enjoy as the matter would still be hanging over him and not settled. He feels that the County Council are playing games. That this eleventh hour bid is another ruse by the Council to bring pressure on him, hoping that he will withdraw. Obviously that letter from Mr Myers is bound to attract very considerable sympathy.
We do not however know anything of the finer detail of the case. It is now a few minutes before 4.30 p.m. and the decision the tribunal Chairman has made is in respect of tomorrow morning.
In the circumstances we feel unable to interfere with the Chairman's decision that a postponement is in the interests of justice. We are, however, extremely concerned at Mr Myers assertion that he has been put to loss and expense needlessly, needlessly, that is, as a result of the postponement of the hearing which he had arranged to attend, and it would be our hope, indeed, our expectation, that, when the matters comes to be resolved in due course, the Industrial Tribunal will pay all the regard it can to that unfortunate chain of events (if established) in considering to what extent Mr Myers' costs and expenses can be recouped to him by such Order as the tribunal finds appropriate on the day.