[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Robinson v. Home Office [2002] UKEAT 0533_01_0305 (3 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/0533_01_0305.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 533_1_305, [2002] UKEAT 0533_01_0305

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR L A ROBINSON THE APPELLANT IN PERSON
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


 


HER HONOUR JUDGE A WAKEFIELD:-

1. This is an appeal by Mr Lynwall Anthony Robinson against a decision of an Employment Tribunal sitting at London South which, following a hearing on 22 February 2001 in the absence of the appellant, dismissed his complaints of sex discrimination and race discrimination.
2. The appeal is on grounds that the Employment Tribunal wrongly exercised its discretion in all the circumstances or was perverse in failing to grant the appellant an adjournment of the hearing to enable him to attend. The respondent does not oppose the appeal.
3. The chronology of the matter and the reasons for refusing the adjournment and continuing with the hearing are set out in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the Employment Tribunal decision as follows:-

"The Applicant had, on 19 February 2001, faxed a letter to the Tribunal requesting an adjournment on medical grounds. A copy medical certificate dated 13 February 2001 but covering the period 13-21 February inclusive was attached. This letter was placed before a Chairman of the Tribunals (Mr Warren) who considered the papers and declined to grant an adjournment. The Applicant had said that he suffered from a medical condition which would necessitate taking frequent breaks during the hearing. The Chairman had informed the Applicant that frequent breaks during the hearing would be allowed if necessary.

On 21 February 2001 the Applicant faxed a further letter and second medical certificate to the Tribunal repeating his request for an adjournment. The second medical certificate was purportedly issued by the same medical centre which posted the first certificate, was dated on the same day (13 February) but was signed by a different doctor and purported to cover a period up to and including 24 February 2001.

The second letter was also considered by a Chairman, Mr Warren, and the request for postponement was refused on the grounds that the Chairman was not satisfied by the medical evidence presented by the Applicant. The Applicant was informed of the Chairman's decision and told the Tribunal that he would not be attending the hearing.

The Tribunal appointed to hear the substantive cases also considered the medical evidence submitted by the Applicant. It was not satisfied as to the medical evidence presented and declined to grant an adjournment."

4. Having thus refused an adjournment of the hearing, the Employment Tribunal dismissed the appellant's complaints on the merits, the appellant not having discharged the burden of making a prima facie case.
5. Any discretion which a judicial body is entitled to exercise must be exercised judicially, that is to say on a correct basis taking into account all relevant matters and not taking account of those which are irrelevant. A Tribunal must also give sufficient reasons for any decision made.
6. This Employment Tribunal had before it a medical certificate, indicating on its face that the appellant was medically unfit to attend on the day of the hearing. The Employment Tribunal by their use of the word "purported" twice in paragraph 9 of the decision, by their conclusion on an unstated basis and, in particular, by making no reference to the reasons why they had dismissed or discounted the appellant's letter of 21 February (which had set out comprehensibly the details of his current medical difficulties), in concluding that they were not satisfied as to the medical evidence, did not in our view exercise their discretion judicially. This was an error of law. In addition, the appellant was deprived of his right under the Human Rights Act to a fair trial of the complaints on their merits. The appeal is therefore allowed. The decision of the Employment Tribunal is quashed and the complaints are remitted to be reconsidered on their merits by a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.