United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT OR RESPONDENT


 


JUDGE P CLARK

1. This case is proceeding in the Bury St Edmunds region. Neither party has appeared before us and we have therefore determined this appeal on the papers.
2. The Appellant, Miss Brown, was employed by the Respondent at their hotel in Great Yarmouth from September 1998 until her resignation effective on about 6 May 2000.
3. , On 4 August 2000 she presented a complaint of constructive, presumably unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal. The claim is resisted, the Respondent contending that she resigned in circumstances not amounting to a constructive dismissal.
4. According to the Respondent's answer to this appeal the case was first listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 8 November 2000. The Appellant requested a postponement of that hearing until January 2001, stating that she could not get time off work to attend on 8 November. The Respondent did not oppose that application and a postponement was granted. The case was relisted for 4 January 2001.
5. On that date the parties attended but the Employment Tribunal was unable to hear the case. The parties were told that priority would be given and a new date provided as soon as possible.
6. On 11 January the parties were notified of the new date, 12 February. On 14 January the Appellant wrote to the Employment Tribunal saying again that she could not get time off from her new job, which is in London, and asked for a postponement until May.
7. A Chairman, Mr C Ash, refused that application. By letter dated 30 January he said that he was not prepared to delay the case until May or June. He would refuse the postponement unless the Appellant could suggest a date much earlier than May. She has not done so.
8. Against that refusal she now appeals.
9. She says that if the hearing goes ahead on 12 February she will be unable to attend and will have to rely upon a written statement. We interpose that Rule 9(3) of the Employment Tribunal rules of Procedure enjoins the Employment Tribunal to consider any written representations by a party, which fails to attend a hearing before determining the complaint.
10. The appeal is resisted by the Respondent, which wants to get on with the case. They point out that May and June is the high season in the seaside hotel business.
11. Our powers to interfere with interlocutory orders of this sort are limited to correcting errors of law. We do not have a general power of review. see Carter v Credit change Ltd [1979] ICR 908. In practice, that means finding that the Chairman reached a conclusion which was perverse in law.
12. We are quite unable to say that perversity is made out in this case. It is unfortunate, for both parties, that the case was not heard on 4 January. Nevertheless, the Chairman was entitled to take into account, balancing the interests of both parties and the proper administration of justice, the need for an early hearing date. It cannot be said to be an impermissible approach for the Chairman to require an alternative date from the Appellant earlier than May 2001.
13. In these circumstances we must dismiss this appeal.