United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE NOR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
For the Respondent	MR J GALBRAITH MARTEN (Of Counsel) Instructed by: Messrs Thompsons Solicitors Congress House Great Russell Street London WC1B 3LW


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK

1. This is an Appeal by Mr Roberts, the Applicant in this case currently proceeding in the London Central Employment Tribunal, against an Interlocutory Order made by a Chairman on 26 September 2001 refusing to postpone the hearing of the case, currently fixed for 5 days commencing on 1 October.
2. The background is that Mr Roberts was a member of the Respondent Trade Union. Following disciplinary proceedings taken against him he was first suspended from membership and then on subsequent internal appeal expelled from the Union.
3. As a result he has presented 2 separate originating applications to the Employment Tribunal. Those applications have been combined and are due to be heard on 1 October. Mr Roberts does not appear before me today but I have been assisted by Mr Galbraith Marten on behalf of the Respondent.
4. It appears that an Order for disclosure was made by the Tribunal at a Directions Hearing on 31 July 2001. Against that Order Mr Roberts appealed to the Appeal Tribunal. That Appeal was heard by a division presided over by Mr Recorder Langstaff QC on 6 September 2001. The Appeal was dismissed.
5. It seems that Mr Roberts wishes to seek permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal against that Employment Appeal Tribunal decision. No adjudication on that application has yet been made by the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, he sought the postponement pending the outcome of his application to the Court of Appeal.
6. The question for me in this Appeal, applying the principles set out by Wood J then President in Adams and Raynor v West Sussex County Council [1990] IRLR 215 is whether or not the Chairman erred in law in refusing the application. Clearly he has power to postpone or not a hearing in accordance with rule 15(7) of the 2001 Rules of Procedure (formerly rule 13(7) of the 1993 Rules.) The question in this case is whether it can be said that his exercise of discretion in refusing the postponement is Wednesbury unreasonable.
7. In my judgment it plainly cannot be so said. The case is now some 2 years old and ought to be tried. There is in my judgment no good reason why the hearing which has been fixed for some time to commence on 1 October should be adjourned pending a speculative application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal being determined.
8. In these circumstances, I shall dismiss this Appeal. The hearing will go ahead on 1 October . Mr Galbraith Marten makes an application for costs in this Appeal. I shall not rule on that application today. Instead, I shall direct that within 28 days the Appellant file a detailed statement of his means by way of a statement of truth and within the same time frame the Respondent file an itemised schedule of costs confined to this Appeal. I shall then determine the application on paper.