Appeal No.	 EAT/107/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 5 February 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE CHARLES
MR P DAWSON OBE
MR P A L PARKER CBE

MS D DANIELS	APPELLANT

MICRO WAREHOUSE LTD	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

INTERLOCUTORY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR A J MARRIOTT
(of Counsel)
MS V A SCOTT
Director
Labour Lex Ltd
Office 21, Castle Park
Fordsham
Cheshire  WA6 6UJ	
For the Respondents	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS	

	MR JUSTICE CHARLES:		In this case the parties are Susan Daniels who is the Appellant and Micro Warehousing Limited who is the Respondent, Susan Daniels is the Applicant in the proceedings in the Employment Tribunal.

	The matter that comes before us deals with a listing point.  We say at once that generally it seems to us that these are matters that must be left to the Tribunal and are not matters with which this Tribunal will interfere.  We regard this as an exceptional case.  The reason for that is that albeit, as we would see it, a sensible practice involving ex-parte decisions was embarked upon here, as a result of the sequence of events and circumstances that occurred, if the matter was reviewed by an objective observer, he would conclude that it appeared that justice was not being done, or was not being seen to be done.  

	Under the relevant practice direction, Industrial Tribunal Practice Direction No. 1, paragraph 4, the overall guidelines are given as to listing. 
“4.1	Parties should not normally be consulted about dates in advance save in specific cases, where it would be appropriate for the parties to be conversed......”
 and then some examples are given.  

	And in paragraph 2 it refers to postponement, and says: 
“The guideline is that apart from the period of 14 days after the first notice of hearing is despatched assuming no prior consultation, postponements will be allowed in exceptional circumstances only, in particular they will not normally be granted because a lawyer is unavailable.”

	Here as we understand it, there had been a postponement because of the illness of the Applicant, then without consultation with the Applicant, a postponement was granted because of the unavailability of a representative of the Respondent.  According to the practice direction that is not normally an exceptional circumstance.  It seems to us, although we make no criticism of that application being dealt with ex-parte that if the date then chosen and notified is inconvenient looked at from the point of view of the representative of the other side, it gives rise to the need to consult both sides to balance their respective convenience and inconvenience of the parties.  

	Again we add that we are not seeking to, in any sense, criticise the Tribunal and those concerned here.  The system they adopted seems to us to be sensible.  This is however one of those exceptional cases where it needs to be reviewed because of the sequence of events that occurred and the result that has arisen therefrom.  We therefore will order that the hearing date fixed for 19 February be vacated and a new date fixed.  In saying that we are not indicating that the convenience of one or other of the parties should win the day.

	We note that the Respondent has written to us, saying that they are content for a date that is convenient to the parties to be fixed.  We fully appreciate that the convenience of the parties is not the only consideration for listing in front of Tribunals who have to have regard to the wider public interest of ensuring that other people are not kept waiting by cases being altered, simply on the whim or for the convenience of parties.  But in this case, for the reasons we have given, we think there are exceptional circumstances and therefore the date should be vacated.