United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Appellant
Respondent	No appearance or representation by or on behalf of the Respondent


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

1. This is an appeal by Dr Varma, the Respondent to an application brought by Mrs Halsall and presently proceeding in the Liverpool Employment Tribunal (case number 2100744/2003) against an Interlocutory Order of a Chairman, Mr Lloyd Parry, contained in a letter to the parties dated 15 April 2003, refusing Dr Varma's application for a postponement of the substantive hearing of the matter, fixed for 24 April (present time estimate one day). Notice of that hearing date was sent to the parties on 20 March; Dr Varma's application for a postponement was contained in a letter dated 6 April.
2. With his Notice of Appeal Dr Varma encloses a letter in which he sets out the grounds of his appeal in this way:

"6) I am a single handed family doctor. I was informed on 20 March 2003 that the hearing was on 24^th April 2003. Given my situation and my responsibilities under regulation 34 of Good Medical Practice then I have to arrange locum cover for my patients. It is not feasible to arrange a locum given one month's notice given the scarcity of locums. In which case I need more time to arrange a locum I would suggest another six weeks would suffice. In the interests of patient care I hope you will agree with this."

3. Those grounds closely mirror the original grounds for his postponement application in his letter to the Tribunal of 6 April. He asked for three months' notice of the hearing so that he could arrange locum cover.
4. In view of the urgency of the matter a hearing of the appeal was fixed for 3 pm today, 16 April. Neither party has attended. I have considered the appeal on the papers.
5. It must be clearly understood that the EAT does not have a general power of review over Employment Tribunal Interlocutory Orders. On the contrary, our jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of law, Employment Tribunals Act 1996 section 21(1). That applies equally to both interlocutory and substantive decisions. See Noorani -v- Merseyside TEC Ltd [1999] IRLR 184. In practice, that means that the Appellant must show that the Tribunal Chairman exercised his discretion under a mistake of law or disregard of guiding legal principle, took into account irrelevant factors or failed to take into account relevant factors, or otherwise reached a decision which is, in the true legal sense, perverse. The power to grant or refuse a postponement under the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2001, Rule 15(7) gives to Chairmen a wide discretion which will not be lightly interfered with. Carter -v- Credit Change Ltd [1979] ICR 908.
6. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the parties were given six weeks notice of the hearing date. Dr Varma, a sole practitioner, wrote to say that he could not arrange locum cover with less than three months' notice. The Chairman considered that submission but balanced the need to bring the matter to an early conclusion in the interests of both parties and in the interests of justice generally, having carried out the balancing act, he rejected the postponement application. That seems to me to be a permissible exercise of his discretion. There are no grounds in law for interfering with that conclusion. On that basis this appeal is dismissed.