United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MISS N KHALIQUE (Of Counsel) Instructed by Messrs Paris & Co Solicitors The Marble Lodge Cocksparrow Street Warwick CV34 4ED
For the Respondent	MR N TOMS (Of Counsel) Instructed by Messrs Thompsons Congress House Great Russell Street London WC1B 3LW


 


SIR CHRISTOPHER BELLANY QC

1. This is an Appeal by the Appellant against the refusal of the Employment Tribunal sitting at Southampton by letter of 3 April 2001 to refuse an adjournment of a Remedies Hearing that has been fixed in this matter for 17 and 18 May. The Appellant argues essentially that the Tribunal erred in law in first of all not giving sufficient time to serve the medical evidence that is going to be necessary for the Remedies Hearing and, secondly, in permitting the Remedies Hearing to be pursued before the hearing of the substantive Appeal in this matter which arises from the original decision of the Employment Tribunal on the merits of 19 January 2001.
2. Fortunately, it has been possible to compromise the Appeal because this Tribunal has been able to grant an expedited hearing of the Appeal. The situation in fact is that very shortly before the hearing of this Appeal today, in correspondence that was exchanged between the parties last Friday on 4 May, the position that had almost been reached in correspondence was that the Respondents to the Appeal were, albeit reluctantly, minded to concede that a short adjournment of the Remedies Hearing was necessary in order to permit the Appellants to serve their medical evidence. The proposal was that the matter might be disposed of by consent if the Employment Appeal Tribunal was able to expedite the Appeal on liability so the hearing could take place within a short time.
3. The situation fortunately is that with the co-operation of the parties and the listing office we have been able to fix the hearing of the main Appeal - that is in case 425/01 - for Tuesday, 26 June and Wednesday, 27 June. The case has already been listed for 1 day and in order to assist the disposal of that case during the day we further direct that the Appeal be listed for 10 o'clock on that day.
4. Had we had to consider the matter in detail we would in any event have been minded to allow the Appeal for the purpose of permitting the Appellant to serve medical evidence before the Remedies Hearing, as indeed already forshadowed in the comments made by Charles J when this matter came before him on 2 May 2001. The result is that effectively by consent the Appeal is allowed on the basis that the substantive Appeal will be heard on 26 and 27 June 2001
5. We therefore direct that the date for the Remedies Hearing before the Employment Tribunal, which we understand is fixed for 17 and 18 May, be set aside and that the Remedies Hearing be listed for the first convenient open date after 30 June. That leaves as it were the question of the time for service of the medical evidence, the original timetable having slipped now somewhat.
6. We have had explained to us that the Appellants expert has now seen each of the Respondents but that he is unfortunately not available to complete his report until after 6 June. The original date as directed by the Employment Tribunal was that the evidence should be served by 3 May. In the circumstances we direct that the Appellants' medical evidence be served on the Respondents on or before 13 June 2001.
7. Those I think are the only directions that we need make. We have before us heard argument as to costs. Both sides applied for the costs of today, the Respondents on the basis that the Appellants have been guilty of unreasonable conduct in not preparing and serving their medical evidence earlier, and the Appellants on the basis that effectively this case could have been settled and very nearly was settled in the correspondence that was exchanged between the parties last Friday. They also emphasised that the original timetable for the service of medical evidence was fairly tight and that they cannot be criticised for the slippage that has occurred.
8. We, for our part, would emphasise that both sides in this matter have a responsibility for ensuring that matters are presented both to the Employment Tribunal and to this Tribunal as expeditiously as possible. It is true that although there has been some slippage in the timetable the original timetable envisaged by the Employment Tribunal for the service of medical evidence was an ambitious one and in all the circumstances of this case we do not think it is appropriate to make a cost order against either party to this Appeal. There will therefore be no order as to costs and we would only comment that from here on the timetable now fixed by the Tribunal must be strictly adhered to by all sides.