United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: This is an urgent interlocutory appeal by the solicitors acting for Kosmar Holidays PLC, respondents to an application made against them by the applicant, Miss Katherine Hadwin, currently proceeding before the London (North) Employment Tribunal.

Neither party appears before us today for logistical reasons. Accordingly we have had to deal with the matter on the papers.

1. First, we have not seen the Employment Tribunal pleadings. That probably is not significant. What is clear is that on 6th October 1999 the tribunal sent out a Notice of Hearing in this case, fixing the hearing date for Monday, 8th November 1999.
2. It seems, from the respondent's answer in this appeal dated 5th November, that on Monday of this week, the 1st November, an application was made by or on behalf of Miss Hadwin for a postponement of the hearing fixed for 8th November. That application was refused.
3. On 4th November the applicant's mother, Mrs Catherine Hadwin faxed the Employment Tribunal, renewing that application. She explained that her mother-in-law was in a dangerous condition (the Notice of Appeal refers to her suffering from cancer) and it was thought unlikely that she had more than a couple of weeks to live. In these circumstances the family wished to be together and felt unable to pursue the claim on 8th November. It would have to be withdrawn.
4. That further application was favourably received, we understand from the Notice of Appeal by the Regional Chairman, Mrs T J Mason, and the postponement was ordered. By a letter dated 5th November the Chairman has directed that the case be relisted for hearing on 5th January 2000.
5. Against that postponement order this appeal is brought.
6. We remind ourselves that we do not have a general power to review Employment Tribunal interlocutory orders of this sort. We can only interfere where an error of law is made out. Medallion Holidays v Birch [1985] ICR 578.
7. In practice, that means that the appellant must show that the decision to grant the postponement was perverse in the legal sense. Carter v Credit Change Ltd [1979] ICR 908, 918, per Stephenson LJ. The Employment Tribunal undoubtedly has power to make such an order under Rule 13(7) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 1993.
8. With that framework in mind we turn to the grounds of appeal. We are quite satisfied that they do not begin to surmount the hurdle of showing perversity. It is not doubt true that the respondent below will suffer inconvenience as a result of the adjournment; witnesses and the company's legal representatives will have made themselves available for a hearing on 8th November; however it is unlikely that significant or indeed any additional expense will be incurred by the hearing taking place two months later. Further, that is not a serious delay. We have little doubt that the Regional Chairman had these factors in mind when carrying out the balancing exercise in deciding whether or not to grant the second postponement application.
9. Further points are taken that the applicant's ailing grandmother is not a witness; the claim is sufficiently straightforward for the applicant herself to conduct her case without the assistance of her mother; it is further suggested that the state of the Grandmother's health is merely an excuse, when the real reason is that the applicant is now legally represented. These are all "jury points" to be put before the Chairman making the decision; they do not support grounds in law for our interfering with the Chairman's exercise of her discretion in our judgment.
10. In all the circumstances we shall dismiss this appeal.