Iqbal v Metropolitan Police Service & Anor

Where a self-represented party seeks an adjournment for ill-health, an Employment Tribunal must decide the application fairly in light of the available medical information. It need not cite particular authorities, but it must consider whether a short adjournment would enable prompt medical evidence to be obtained.

Where there is a significant history of depression or stress requiring treatment, the Tribunal should be particularly careful. If the evidence indicates that a party is receiving treatment and may be unable to participate effectively, fairness may require a short adjournment despite inconvenience, cost and delay. A refusal which overlooks that evidence and the possibility of obtaining urgent medical opinion is an error of law.

The Claimant, a police community support officer, brought discrimination claims concerning unsuccessful applications for technical posts and a proposed workplace relocation. The claims were listed for an eight-day hearing before the Employment Tribunal at Watford.

On the second hearing day, the Claimant, who was representing himself, sought an adjournment because of depression, sleep difficulties and other health problems. He referred to an occupational-health report in the hearing bundle. The report recorded antidepressant treatment, counselling and ongoing psychological problems. The Tribunal refused the application. The Claimant then withdrew his claims on medical grounds and they were dismissed.

On appeal, the central issue was whether the Tribunal erred in law by refusing an adjournment without properly addressing the medical material and the possibility of obtaining prompt further medical evidence.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal erred in law in refusing the adjournment. The dismissal was set aside, the withdrawal was declared ineffective, and the claims were remitted to a freshly constituted Tribunal.

2. Applications for adjournments based on stress or depression can be difficult, particularly where a litigant represents himself and the evidence is incomplete. The overriding objective does not justify proceeding without addressing a persisted application fairly. A Tribunal need not refer expressly to Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth [2002] ICR 1471, but it must apply the correct principles.

3. Where medical evidence establishes that a party cannot participate, an adjournment will generally be required. Where there is no direct evidence of incapacity, the Tribunal must decide whether a short adjournment should be granted to obtain it. The party’s existing medical history is highly material. A significant history of depression or stress requiring treatment calls for particular caution and will often justify an urgent appointment with the treating practice to obtain a focused opinion.

4. The Tribunal’s reasons did not address the occupational-health report confirming depression, antidepressant treatment and ongoing psychological problems. They also did not consider a short adjournment to obtain medical opinion. Had it fully appreciated the treatment, counselling and general-practitioner involvement, fairness required that short adjournment. Proceeding without it was unfair.

5. The later medical report was not admitted or relied upon. The appeal succeeded because of the Tribunal’s failure at the hearing. The Appeal Tribunal also observed, without deciding its effect in this case, that substantial costs warnings given at the start of a hearing to an unrepresented litigant with a history of depression are usually best avoided.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the Claimant’s appeal, set aside the dismissal, declared the withdrawal ineffective, and remitted the claims to a freshly constituted Employment Tribunal.
• Employment Tribunal, Watford: At a hearing on 31 August 2011, refused a health-based postponement application. Following the Claimant’s withdrawal, it dismissed his discrimination claims.