[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> House Of Fraser v Coleman & Ors [1997] UKEAT 777_97_2606 (26 June 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/777_97_2606.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 777_97_2606

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
For the Respondents	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): This is an interlocutory appeal brought by House of Fraser (Stores) Ltd, who are appealing against a refusal of an Industrial Tribunal to adjourn or postpone hearings which are due to take place on 27th June 1997, that is tomorrow, and 4th July 1997, until after a directions hearing first takes place.

The grounds on which this appeal is made are set out in a document supplied to us this morning by the House of Fraser's solicitors, Messrs Eversheds. They say firstly that each of the applications, if heard separately, there being three of them, is likely to take at least five full days but they have only been listed for one. The representative of two of the three applicants, that is Messrs Coope and Coleman, himself envisages calling witnesses which would mean that in his view the case would take longer than the one day which has been allocated to it. Secondly, that the Store's crucial witness happens not to be available on either of the two dates. Thirdly, that the Store had received 40 applications in respect of the same alleged redundancy exercise, and I quote:

"Is in the process gathering the relevant documentation on each of the applications".

And finally, it is submitted that it is clearly not in the interests of justice in cases which are complex for tribunals to insist on proceeding with undue haste without giving the parties the opportunity to make submissions on the future conduct of the proceedings at a directions hearing.

As usual, we take the view that questions relating to the way in which cases are brought on for hearing are best left, in principle, to the Industrial Tribunals who have more experience than we do of how to run factual cases. But we are assisted in this case in particular by a communication which we received this morning by the representative on behalf of two of the three applicants, who puts forward, in a convincing and coherent way, his attitude to the suggested appeal against the refusal to grant an adjournment. In summary, he says that he would prefer a postponement now, contending that an adjournment on the day, or the respondents appealing at a later date contending that they were not given a fair hearing; and he says that he would particularly welcome a postponement if the respondents, the Store, were prepared to discuss an out of Court settlement which would save everyone's' time.

It seems to us, in the light of this very sensible attitude taken on behalf of two of three applicants, that we can take an exceptional course and allow this interlocutory appeal. I should say that we have tried to contact the third applicant who is representing himself, but have been unable to make contact with him this morning. As I say, these papers were faxed to us either this morning or late yesterday afternoon.

Having reached the conclusion that in the circumstances outlined in the Notice of Appeal justice cannot properly be done between the parties if the case proceeds to a hearing on liability tomorrow, it is our collective view, and we are sure that this would be supported by the Industrial Tribunal that the day set aside for tomorrow could well be used by the Industrial Tribunal to give proper directions so as to enable these three cases to proceed in an orderly and prompt manner.

Whilst the directions that the Chairman might wish to give are entirely a matter for his discretion, it would seem to us sensible that there should be a strict timetable set down which the respondents must comply with in relation to documentation and possibly witness statements, so as to enable the representative of the two applicants and the unrepresented applicant, to have proper opportunity to prepare themselves for a hearing, if such is to take place. It seems to us also, that the applicants are looking for an out of Court settlement. There is a conciliation function which Industrial Tribunals and this Court have, and it seems to us, that if there is any hope of such a settlement, those discussion could perhaps also take place tomorrow.

Accordingly, we allow the appeal to the extent that: we direct that the case on liability should not be heard and determined tomorrow, but we do give a direction that tomorrow should be used for the purposes of considering what further directions the tribunal should give, so that the cases may proceed in an orderly way to a fair disposition.

In these circumstances, we allow the appeal but would add that our decision is largely based upon the representative's helpful written submissions, which were not available to the Industrial Tribunal when it refused an adjournment.