Appeal No. EAT/838/01

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 20 July 2001

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN 
MS G MILLS
MRS R A VICKERS

MRS S DJEMAL	APPELLANT

GEORGE AND HELEN GABRIEL
 t/a GEORGE THE BARBERS	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

INTERLOCUTORY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	Mr K Besfor
Messrs Ormerods
Green Dragon House
64-70 High Street
Croydon
Surrey CR0 9XN	
For the Respondent	Mr K Micklewright
Messrs A N Tzourou & Co
Solicitors
10 The Broadway
Addington Road
Selsdon 
Surrey CR2 8LH	

MR JUSTICE DOUGLAS BROWN

1	This is an interlocutory application, an appeal challenging a Decision of the Employment Tribunal sitting at West Croydon, refusing the Appellant’s request for an adjournment.  The hearing of her claim for unfair dismissal is due to begin on the 23rd of this month, next week.  

2	Various reasons have been put forward, all of them connected with a visit to Cyprus by Mrs Djemal and her family, with the immediate cause being a family bereavement. 

3	The details that have been provided, despite various requests by the Chairman who has dealt with this are still limited, but the reasons put forward in essence are these: that the whole family, that is Mrs Djemal, her husband and her children, will be travelling on 21 July, tomorrow, to Cyprus overland by rail, road and by sea, and the reason for this complicated journey is that Mr Djemal has a heart condition and is unable to fly.  

4	The application for an adjournment was made by letter as early as 2 July and it was promptly refused.  After this, it is apparent from further particulars provided, that Mrs Djemal and her husband bought travel tickets on 12 July and copies of these are exhibited to one of her solicitor’s letters.  

5	The direct refusal, which is currently under appeal, was over the signature of the Regional Secretary of the Tribunals dated 19 July, the Chairman having considered all the correspondence, the letter reads:
“2. A Chairman of the Tribunals has considered carefully all you say and has balanced that against the desirability of bringing this case to a hearing without delay.  
3.  The Chairman refuses your request for the following reason(s):
(1) The Chairman, Mr Warren, notes that the travel tickets were booked on 12th July - after the hearing date was known.
(2)  Moreover your opponent has objected to the postponement requested.”
And that is a reference to the solicitors for the Respondent, A N Tzourou & Co, who objected in very firm terms, pointing out that Mr Djemal was not going to attend a funeral, but appeared to be going on a holiday.  

6	We have summarised the essential detail here that is available.  It is still not clear why, with this Tribunal dated fixed and the adjournment refused, Mrs Djemal went ahead to buy tickets; it is not clear why she cannot leave at the end of July.  There is some reference to a four week period when certain procedures have to be followed through by the next of kin in relation to the claiming of the body of the deceased, but as we are not given the date of the death of the deceased, it is not easy to understand the urgency or otherwise of that.

7	The problem facing Mrs Djemal is that this Appeal Tribunal can only interfere with a Decision of the Chairman if it is shown that he has been in error as a matter of law, or that his exercise of discretion is one which no reasonable Chairman, properly directing himself would make.    

8	We cannot see from any of the material here, particularly the reasons given by the Chairman, that there is any sign of any error of law on the part of the Chairman of this Tribunal, and this appeal is refused.