[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Leisure Accessories Ltd v Reynolds [1995] UKEAT 70_95_3001 (30 January 1995) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1995/70_95_3001.html Cite as: [1995] UKEAT 70_95_3001

[New search] [Help]

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 70_95_3001

Appeal No. EAT/70/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 30 January 1995

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SMITH

MR A C BLYGHTON

MR T C THOMAS CBE

---

LEISURE ACCESSORIES LIMITED          APPELLANTS

MRS J REYNOLDS          RESPONDENT

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellants NO APPEARANCE/ REPRESENTATION

BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS OR RESPONDENT

For the Respondent


 


MRS JUSTICE SMITH: This is an interlocutory appeal by Leisure Accessories Ltd from the decision of an Industrial Tribunal Chairman at Norwich, in which he refused their application for an adjournment of a hearing, scheduled to take place tomorrow 31 January, of the Respondent's application to the Industrial Tribunal.

The Respondent was employed by the Appellants as an adminstration clerk and following her dismissal on 7 January 1994, she lodged an application with the Industrial Tribunal alleging unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, constructive dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages under the Wages Act.

Following the customary consultation as to suitable hearing dates, the case was fixed for 13 September 1994. The Respondent's solicitor applied for an adjournment but was rejected. Thereafter, the Appellants' solicitors sought an adjournment. As the Respondent agreed, that application was granted and the case was re-listed for 14 November 1994.

On 3 November 1994, the Appellants applied for a further adjournment. That request was granted. There followed further consultation as to suitable hearing dates. Soon afterwards the hearing was listed for 31 January 1995. On 29 November 1994, the Appellants' solicitors indicated that that date would not be convenient and applied for a date to be fixed in February 1995. The Respondent's solicitor objected to any further adjournment. Soon after that, the Appellants withdrew their instructions from their solicitors and a further request was received at the office of the Industrial Tribunal seeking an adjournment of the hearing on 31 January.

There followed correspondence between the Appellants in person, and the Regional Office, which culminated in the refusal of the Chairman to grant the adjournment requested. Two grounds had been advanced. The first was the absence of a vital witness, one of the directors of the Company who, it was said, would be abroad. Second, it was said that the Respondent had failed to provide copies of the documents upon which she proposed to rely, and had not complied with the rule which required disclosure of documents seven days in advance of the hearing. The Respondent opposed the application, contending that she would be prejudiced by further delay.

The Tribunal Chairman indicated that exchange of documents at the hearing would be appropriate in this case and he also rejected the application on the ground of absence abroad. It appears to us that the Chairman had taken the view that, bearing in mind the history of adjournments in this case, the matter had gone on for long enough. Any further adjournment would prejudice the Respondent. It appears to us, that that was a wholly reasonable decision for the Chairman to have made. Adjournments are in any event a matter for the Chairman's discretion and we detect no error of approach.

Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.