N Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust
[2022] EAT 204
Philip Hall v Transport for London
1 March 2024
[2024] EAT 26
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A man sued his employer for discrimination. The judge refused to delay the case for a third time, even though the man said he was too sick. A higher court agreed with the judge, saying the man hadn't given enough reason for a further delay and that the case needed to be finished.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Philip Hall (Claimant/Appellant) appealed an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision dismissing his disability discrimination and protected disclosure detriment claims against Transport for London (Respondent).
- •The ET dismissed the claims after a hearing spread over August 2020 and May 2021, during which the Claimant's multiple requests for adjournments were refused.
- •The Claimant's primary argument was that the ET unfairly refused his third adjournment request due to insufficient time to obtain updated medical evidence.
- •The ET's refusal of adjournment was based on Rule 30A(3) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, which restricts granting multiple postponements unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- •The Claimant argued that the ET's delay in responding to a previous application prejudiced him, but the ET had considered his available medical evidence and the need to conclude the lengthy case.
- •The hearing was conducted remotely via video link, which the Claimant also argued against.
Legal Principles
Employment Tribunals have broad case management powers (Rule 29, Schedule 1, ET Rules) subject to Rule 30A(2) and (3), particularly regarding multiple postponements.
Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
The overriding objective of ET Rules is to ensure cases are dealt with fairly and justly, considering factors like proportionality, avoiding delay, and saving expense (Rule 2, ET Rules).
Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
Rule 30A(3) restricts the ET's discretion to grant postponements after two or more prior postponements, requiring consent, an act/omission by another party, or exceptional circumstances.
Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
Exceptional circumstances under Rule 30A(4) may include ill health relating to a long-term condition or disability.
Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
Appellate bodies should be slow to interfere with an ET's discretion to grant adjournments, only doing so on 'Wednesbury' unreasonableness grounds.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn [1948] 1 KB 223 CA; Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth [2002] ICR 1471 CA; O’Cathail v. Transport for London [2012] ICR 614 CA; Phelan v Richardson Rogers Ltd [2021] ICR 1164 EAT
Article 6 ECHR rights and common law rights to a fair trial are engaged in adjournment applications, requiring a balance between the applicant's needs and the interests of other parties and efficient adjudication.
Teinaz; Phelan; O’Cathail
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The ET did not err in its approach to Rule 30A(3). It considered all relevant factors, including the claimant's medical evidence and the need to conclude the lengthy case. The ET's decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable.