[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Midland Publishing Group Plc v. Greene [2000] UKEAT 711_00_2006 (20 June 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/711_00_2006.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 711__2006, [2000] UKEAT 711_00_2006

[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 MAURICE KAY: This is an appeal from the decision of an Employment Tribunal which has refused to adjourn or postpone the imminent hearing date of the application. The hearing date is 27th June 2000, that is to say eight days from now.

1. The history seems to be that a solicitor acting for the respondents, who was also a potential witness in the case, is said to be unwell and unfit for the proceedings on 27th June. This was brought to attention of the tribunal by a letter dated 8th June 2000 which enclosed a letter from the solicitor's wife. The letter from the solicitor's wife was dated 10th May 2000 and stated that the solicitor:

" has been taken seriously ill and I have been advised by our GP that it could take up to three months or more for him to recover. He is therefore unable to work for some considerable time and someone has been appointed at the office to take over his workload."

2. When the Employment Tribunal were told of that a Chairman considered the position and refused the request to adjourn. In a letter dated 8th June 2000 the tribunal stated:

"The chairman has further directed that unavailability of a legal representative is not normally a valid reason for a postponement. If Mr Hunter was also going to attend as a witness, medical evidence of his incapacity should be supplied as a matter of urgency when the matter will be reconsidered."

3. The appeal to us was lodged on 12th June 2000 and was accompanied by a letter dated 11th June to the EAT rehearsing the history of the request for an adjournment and indicating that the solicitor, Mr Hunter, had previously made some payment on behalf of the respondents from his own funds and that, regrettably, the respondent does not have access to the records. Those, we infer, are the matters upon which the solicitor could give evidence.
4. So far as the refusal of the adjournment is concerned, that is an exercise of discretion on the part of the tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal can only interfere with such an exercise of discretion if it can be demonstrated to have been plainly wrong. On the material before us we are unable to conclude that it was a plainly wrong exercise of discretion. To the extent that the issue was the unavailability of the solicitor as a legal representative, as the tribunal pointed out, the unavailability of a legal representative known some considerable time before the hearing date, would very rarely justify an adjournment. To the extent that the issue related to the potential role of the solicitor as a witness, different considerations would apply but as the Employment Tribunal advised in its letter of 8th June, it would not vacate the date of 27th June without medical evidence of incapacity to attend as a witness.
5. Whilst we have seen what the respondents say and what the solicitor's wife said in her letter of 10th May and also in a subsequent letter of 22nd May, none of this amounts to medical evidence. There has been ample time within which to supply a medical certificate or the opinion of a doctor dealing with the fitness or otherwise of the solicitor for 27th June, nothing appears to have been forthcoming and in all those circumstances this appeal is dismissed.