[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Glantech Security v Loughlin [1998] UKEAT 256_98_1002 (10 February 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/256_98_1002.html Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 256_98_1002

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	THE APPELLANTS NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED
For the Respondent	THE RESPONDENT NEITHER PRESENT NOR REPRESENTED


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an appeal brought by the respondents to an application presented to an Industrial Tribunal. By that application, Mr Loughlin complains that he had been unfairly dismissed by his former employers, Glantech Security, a partnership. The dismissal was effected on 4th August 1997. The IT1 was presented on 30th October 1997, and the respondents, Glantech Security put in a response in November. They effectively admit the dismissal, but contend that it was fair and by reason of the applicant's alleged gross misconduct.

In due time, the tribunal by a notice dated 3rd December 1997 informed the parties of the date for the hearing, namely 12th February 1998 at 10 a.m..

By letter dated 22nd January 1998, a representative, Mr M M Ladd, one of the two partners of Glantech Security, on Glantech Security's behalf asked for a postponement of the hearing. That application was refused in a letter dated 28th January 1998 in these terms:

"2. The Chairman has considered all you say and has balanced that against the desirability of bringing this case to a hearing without delay. Your request for a postponement is refused. However the matter will be reviewed on receipt of a medical certificate."

In due course a medical certificate was provided to the Industrial Tribunal. That certificate is dated 3rd February 1998, and is from a medical practice in Horsham where Mr M M Ladd lives, and it is in relation to Mr M M Ladd and says:

"This patient of mine has been having treatment for mild depression and is still slightly fragile mentally. I feel he should delay any stressful duties for a couple of months until he is off treatment and coping better."

The Industrial Tribunal have indicated, so we understand, to Glantech Security that their further renewed application for a postponement in the light of that medical certificate should be refused.

Glantech Security appeal against that decision to this Court. They say that the advice from the doctor should be followed in the interests of Mr Ladd's long-term recovery. They say that he is the representative for this case, and in the interests of "fair play" the hearing should be postponed.

We should say at once that we have not seen the formal decision of the Industrial Tribunal to the effect complained of by the appellants.

In relation to the appeal, the respondent say that the matter has been listed for some time; the date was confirmed as at 28th January 1998; he says that he has had to take time off work for the hearing and wishes the case to be resolved as soon as possible. He makes a reference to Glantech's position in terms of ACAS. He indicates that he could not agree to the matter being further protracted for the two months suggested as it is affecting his current employment and his family, and he would like to finalise the matter as soon as possible.

It seems to us, based on the material available to us, that it would not be right to accede to this appeal, because, essentially, it seems to us, that Industrial Tribunals are best placed to take control over their own proceedings, including decisions as to whether cases should be listed for hearing or not.

But that said, it seems to us that on 12th February 1998, it will be open to Glantech Security to renew their application for an adjournment to the Industrial Tribunal which will then be in a position to ask itself the relevant questions to which we cannot have answers on this appeal. For example, what is the importance of Mr M M Ladd's evidence having regard to the other evidence which may be available? Is Mr M M Ladd able to attend the tribunal at all? Is he able to swear an affidavit in relation to the evidence that he would give? Are the matters documented or is there going to be a conflict of recollection between the parties such that an early hearing would be desirable? Is it possible for the tribunal to organise its procedure so that the stress referred to in the medical certificate is not exacerbated by Mr M M Ladd's attendance at the tribunal in some way? Those are matters essentially for the Industrial Tribunal to take into account.

Having regard to the desirability that justice should be done between parties on the basis that both of them have a fair opportunity of presenting their points of view to the tribunal of fact, it would be unfortunate if an injustice was done to litigants as a result of the administrative convenience of the tribunal being put in advance of the interests of the litigants. We are sure that the tribunal will have that firmly in mind if they come to consider the application, if such is made to it, on 12th February.

Accordingly, at this time, we are not prepared to allow this appeal, but recognise that the position of Glantech Security might require an adjournment of the proceedings on 12th February, but that will be a matter for the Industrial Tribunal on that occasion having regard to the relevant matters. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.