[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Human Resources Partnership Ltd v Taverner [1996] UKEAT 1342_96_0412 (4 December 1996) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1996/1342_96_0412.html Cite as: [1996] UKEAT 1342_96_412, [1996] UKEAT 1342_96_0412

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK: We have before us this afternoon an ex parte interlocutory appeal by the Company against a refusal by a Chairman of Industrial Tribunals at Bedford, Mrs C Tribe, to grant a postponement of the substantive hearing of Mr Taverner's complaint fixed for hearing tomorrow, 5th December 1996.

This appeal has been lodged by fax. We have been shown the following documents only:

(1) A Notice of Appeal.

(2) The tribunal's order contained in a letter dated 3rd December 1996.

(3) The fax header sheet bearing a message to us from Mr A Watson, a director of the Company.

We have been supplied with no other information. We have not seen the pleadings in the Industrial Tribunal. We do not know the nature of Mr Taverner's claim against the Company.

What we have gleaned is that the Company applied for a postponement of the hearing fixed for 5th December 1996, on the grounds, we infer, that a Director of the Company was to be abroad. That application was refused by the Chairman on the grounds that:

"The respondent does not say why the Director's evidence is essential for the just disposal of the case."

Pausing there, Industrial Tribunals have a wide discretion to decide whether or not to postpone a hearing under Rule 13(7) of the Industrial Tribunal Rules of Procedure 1993. Any order made can only be upset on appeal if the tribunal's decision is perverse in any of the senses identified by Arnold J in Bastick v James Lane [1979] ICR 778, 782, which statement of the law was expressly approved by Stephenson LJ in Carter v Credit Change Ltd [1979] ICR 908, 918.

Applying that approach to this case we are quite unable to discern any error in the order made by the Chairman. We will not admit further evidence in order to reach a different conclusion. That is not the function of the appellate tribunal. Accordingly the appeal must be dismissed.

We would simply add this. The order made was an interlocutory, not a final order. It is open to the Company to apply again at the hearing tomorrow for a postponement, giving full reasons for that application. The tribunal will decide that further application on its merits, taking into account representations made on behalf of the applicant. The answer to any such application will then lie within the discretion of the Industrial Tribunal.