United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	THE APPELLANT In Person And DR C H HABI PATEL
For the Respondent	THE RESPONDENT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN

1. Dr Rani Pal brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal in Birmingham against her former employers the City Hospital NHS Trust. There was a hearing in September 2000 continued in December 2000 and the Extended Reasons decision was sent to the parties on 1 February 2001.
2. From that decision, Dr Pal is now appealing to this Appeal Tribunal but in addition and parallel to that Appeal she has applied for a review of the Tribunal decision. The Regional Chairman, Mr Rees has fixed 9 July 2001 for the first Preliminary Hearing of that application for a review hearing. He has refused by letter from and on behalf of Dr Pal to alter that date.
3. From that refusal of his Dr Pal now appeals. We have some doubt as to whether the Appeal is properly before us because the Notice of Appeal makes Mr Rees Respondent to the Appeal. She has not sought to challenge his decision by way of judicial review but we have looked at the matter as if the City Hospital Trust were Respondents to the Appeal. They certainly regard themselves as such because they have entered a response relying on the Chairman's reasons.
4. This Court can only interfere with the decision of an Employment Tribunal or a Regional Chairman, if the Appellant is able to show an error in law on the face of the decision. Dr Patel and her sister, also Dr Patel, in effect appear jointly before us and jointly make this case. First and foremost the 9 July is an impossible date because both of them and a third Dr Patel, Dr Rita Patel who is actually going to present the case, all have medical commitments on that day which are unbreakable. By way of example Dr Rani Pal has and has had for six months a commitment as a standby locum in Coventry and is therefore unable to be in Birmingham for the review on 9 July.
5. The case is amplified by a letter written on behalf of Dr Pal by Dr Rita Pal on 10 May. It is not just a work commitment that make it impossible for him to attend but a number of other issues are raised in that letter. They had asked for independent members to be appointed and that had not yet happened. There was a letter from Mr Rees earlier apparently restricting the review the consideration of typographical errors and a request was made that the Preliminary Hearing date should be altered before these unresolved matters are decided either by an Employment Tribunal or by this Court or by a Higher Court.
6. That, it seems to us, will have the effect of adjourning the review almost indefinitely. This Tribunal, we are told has ordered that the Appeal to this Tribunal from the Employment Tribunal decision be deferred until after the review has been concluded or a decision on the review made.
7. Finally, I should mention that Dr Pal regarded the letter that was written on 30 March, which had not apparently immediately received by the Regional office, as making it clear that she was unable to be present at the review because of clinical commitments on 9 July. That contention is not easy to understand because what the letter in fact says is this, "leave could not be obtained or arranged in May or June 2001 and whilst the later weeks of July 2001 would be the most convenient to us given my clients clinical commitments" there was no mention specific dates in July to be avoided. It is not that easy to understand why, if Dr Pal had a commitment to work in Coventry, as she told us, arranged six months ago, that commitment has not been referred to in any correspondence and was not referred to in March when dates to be avoided were mentioned.
8. That is her ground for saying that the Regional Chairman was wrong to refuse to adjourn this review Preliminary Hearing on 9 July. We endeavoured to ask Dr Pal and her sister how they suggested that the Regional Chairman had gone wrong as a matter of law and we have referred to in general but not to any specific terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
9. In our view, no identifiable error of law has been put before us. It is axiomatic of that decision on an application for adjournment is considered judicially. Matters of judicial discretion are not usually the subject of appeal.
10. Nothing has been put before us to indicate that the learned Regional Chairman fell into error or that he exercised its discretion in a manner that was plainly wrong. The place for adjournment decisions, fixing of dates must be in the Tribunal below. It would be a very extreme case where this Appeal Tribunal would interfere in such a decision and this is not such a case and accordingly this application is refused.