Purohit v Hospira UK Ltd & Anor

An Employment Tribunal has broad case-management discretion to take witness statements as read, exclude irrelevant or without-prejudice material, and refuse an adjournment where the evidence does not establish that the claimant cannot participate fairly. An appeal based on alleged perversity requires the appellant to surmount a high threshold. Where the tribunal directed itself correctly, addressed each issue, and reached findings open to it on the evidence, disagreement with those findings does not establish an error of law.

The claimant brought claims of direct race and sex discrimination, victimisation and sexual harassment against her employer and a colleague. The Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims after a lengthy hearing, finding either that alleged events had not occurred or that they did not amount to unlawful discrimination. The claimant appealed on procedural and substantive grounds.

The procedural complaints concerned the tribunal’s constitution at certain stages, exclusion of material concerning a without-prejudice discussion, taking witness statements as read, refusal of a four-week adjournment, alleged factual perversity, and an alleged change of decision. The central issue was whether any of those matters disclosed an error of law.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The Employment Tribunal had addressed each of the 12 issues and had directed itself correctly on the applicable law.
2. Case management. The tribunal was entitled to exclude a paragraph concerning a without-prejudice discussion as irrelevant. The decision was within the Employment Tribunal’s case-management discretion.
3. The tribunal was entitled to take witness statements as read and to refuse the application that witnesses read them aloud. Any initial procedural issue was superseded when the fully constituted tribunal reconsidered and rejected the application, applying the approach in Mehta v Child Poverty Agency [2011] IRLR 305.
4. Adjournment. The tribunal was entitled to refuse a four-week adjournment where the doctor’s letter did not establish that the claimant was unable to participate in the hearing. It acted properly by adjourning briefly when the claimant was affected by sleeping tablets and resuming the next day. The approach was consistent with Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth [2002] ICR 1471.
5. Substantive allegations. Findings that events had not occurred, or that conduct was unrelated to race or sex, were findings open to the tribunal on the evidence. The tribunal correctly directed itself on the burden of proof, including the approach in Igen Ltd v Wong [2005] EWCA Civ 142. None of the alleged perversity reached the high threshold required for appellate intervention.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s reserved judgment, which had dismissed all claims.