N Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust
[2022] EAT 204
Heidi Bennet v London Borough of Islington
19 July 2024
[2024] EAT 118
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A woman's employment tribunal case was almost dismissed because her representative got sick. The judge refused to postpone the hearing despite her disabilities, making it impossible for her to represent herself. A higher court overturned the decision, ordering a new hearing with a different judge.
Key Facts
- •Heidi Bennett appealed an employment tribunal's refusal to postpone her unfair dismissal and disability discrimination hearing.
- •Bennett was represented by a volunteer who fell ill, leaving her without representation on the second day of a ten-day hearing.
- •The tribunal refused to postpone despite Bennett's mental health disabilities (PTSD, dyspraxia) and the inability to secure alternative representation.
- •The appeal focused on the fourth and final postponement refusal.
Legal Principles
A decision on an application to postpone a hearing involves the exercise of case-management powers under rule 29 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Rule 30A relates specifically to applications to postpone a hearing.
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Rules 29 and 30A
An appellate court can only interfere with a case management decision if it involved a misdirection of law, failed to take into account relevant factors, took into account irrelevant factors or was plainly wrong.
Case law precedent
Where the application is to postpone a trial, the outcome of which may dispose of the claim, the applicant's Article 6 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights and common rights to a fair trial will be engaged.
Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth [2002] ICR 1471 CA, Hall v Transport for London [2024] ICR 788
Fairness to other litigants may require that if an applicant has not adequately taken the opportunity to justify a postponement that indulgence is not extended.
Andreou v Lord Chancellor's Department [2002] IRLR 728 CA
Outcomes
The appeal succeeded.
The tribunal erred by failing to consider the claimant's inability to represent herself due to her mental health disability and the loss of her representative, and by not considering a short adjournment to obtain further medical evidence.
The matter was to be reheard before a differently constituted tribunal.
The original tribunal's refusal to postpone and subsequent adjudication on the merits rendered a fresh trial necessary before an unbiased panel.