United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Ms D Chambers (In Person)
For the 1st Respondent	Neither present nor represented
For the 2nd Respondent	Ms K Tickner (of Counsel) Policy & Administration Dept. Legal Services Division London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Town Hall, King Street London W6 9JU


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: The Appellant, Ms Chambers, brought claims of racial discrimination against the Respondents by Originating Applications dated 5 March 1998. The case was listed for hearing at the London (North) Employment Tribunal on 9th and 10th November 1998.

By a letter dated 30 September, she wrote to the Tribunal applying for a postponement of the hearing until March 1999. She suffers from Irritable Bowel Syndrome in respect of which she had an appointment to see a hospital specialist on 26 February 1999. A copy of that appointment letter was enclosed with her application. What she did not enclose was a medical certificate from her general practitioner or any other doctor stating that she would be unfit to attend the Tribunal hearing in November.

That application was refused by a Chairman on 1st October. The decision letter reads as follows:

"I refer to your recent request for a postponement of the hearing in this case. The Chairman accepts that you suffer from a stress related disorder.

However, she considers that it is in the best interest of all parties to bring this litigation to an end. Once that is done, the stress will be lessened.

You should make every effort to either attend the tribunal or settle the claim as you have mentioned."

On the 3 November she appealed to this Tribunal against that refusal to grant her a postponement. At the same time she made a further request in writing to the Employment Tribunal for a postponement. That request was refused by a letter dated 4 November, in that letter she was advised that she could renew her request for a postponement, but in doing so she should provide a letter from her doctor saying that she was unfit to attend the Tribunal hearing on 9th and 10th November 1998. She has yet to obtain such a certificate.

By their answer to the appeal the second Respondent, the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, rely upon the principles set out in Bastick v James Lane [1979] ICR 778, approved by the Court of Appeal in Carter v Credit Change Ltd [1979] ICR 908. In short, we accept the submission made on behalf of the Council by Ms Tickner. We have no general power to review an Employment Tribunal Chairman's exercise of discretion in granting or refusing a postponement of a hearing under Rule 13(7) of Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, we can only interfere where the decision has been reached impermissibly under Wednesbury principles.

Before us today Ms Chambers has told us that she cannot afford legal representation for the forthcoming hearing, she has another different complaint of racial discrimination outstanding which is due for hearing in January 1999. She is suffering on health grounds from a stress related condition and she submits that the Chairman on 1 October failed to take that condition sufficiently into account. We have considered those submissions and the principles which apply in an appeal such as this. In this case, we are unable to say that any ground in law has been made out for interfering with the decision of 1 October. The Chairman took into account the Appellant's illness, but had to balance that factor against the desirability, in the interests of all parties, including the three individual employees named as Respondents and who are employed by the second Respondent, of a speedy resolution of the matter. In coming down in favour of allowing the matter to proceed on 9 November it cannot be said, in our judgment, that this was a wrong exercise of discretion. Accordingly this appeal must be dismissed.