Kotecha v Insurety Plc (t/a Capital Health Care) & Anor

An Employment Tribunal has a broad case-management discretion when deciding whether to adjourn a hearing on health grounds. An adjournment is not automatically required merely because a claimant produces medical evidence stating that he cannot present his case. The Tribunal may assess the claimant’s actual ability to participate, the reliability and scope of the medical evidence, the age and likely effect of delay, and fairness to all parties. Appellate review attracts considerable deference, particularly where the decision concerns case management. Where the claimant attends, presents the application coherently, and demonstrates capacity to act, refusal of an adjournment will not amount to an error of law unless the Tribunal’s reasoning is legally flawed or outside the range of permissible decisions.

The claimant brought claims for direct race discrimination and racial harassment against the respondents. The Employment Tribunal refused repeated applications to adjourn the hearing, including an application based on depression, alcoholism and medical evidence that the claimant was unable to present his case.

The Tribunal considered the claimant’s medical material, his attendance and conduct at the hearing, the age of the proceedings, the effect of further delay on both sides, and the overriding objective under regulation 3 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulation 2004. The claimant appealed, alleging that refusal of an adjournment was an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to refuse the adjournment and there was no arguable error of law.
2. The guidance in Teinaz v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2002] ICR 1471 did not require an adjournment on these facts. The claimant attended the hearing, made submissions, and was found to have the mental capacity to act. The Tribunal’s finding that he presented his application eloquently was a critical and permissible assessment.
3. The Tribunal was entitled to give greater weight to its direct assessment of the claimant than to the limited opinion of Dr Allen, who had seen him only briefly and had limited knowledge of his history and of Tribunal proceedings. The Tribunal was also entitled to assess the reliability of the medical evidence and to find that it had been manipulated.
4. The Tribunal properly balanced fairness to the claimant and respondents, proportionality, expedition and the consequences of delay. The age of the proceedings and the risk that a fair hearing would become more difficult after a further six months were relevant considerations under regulation 3 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulation 2004.
5. Following Teinaz, appellate review of an adjournment decision involves considerable deference to the Employment Tribunal. The same approach supported dismissal of the appeal. The discussion of Andreou v Lord Chancellor’s Department [2002] IRLR 721 formed part of the relevant procedural guidance.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal against refusal by the Employment Tribunal to adjourn the hearing dismissed.
• Employment Tribunal: Refused the claimant’s adjournment applications and proceeded with the hearing.