Parexel International Ltd v Adnett

An adjournment is a discretionary case-management decision. An appellate court will interfere where the tribunal gives inadequate reasons, fails to assess material evidence or acts procedurally unfairly.

Where a necessary party claims medical unfitness to attend, the right to a fair hearing under European Convention on Human Rights article 6 may require an adjournment. The applicant must nevertheless establish genuine inability to attend. Generic references to pregnancy, stress or anxiety, without sufficient detail of symptoms, cause, severity, prognosis and relevance to the hearing date, may not discharge that burden.

The tribunal must balance fairness to both parties, prompt determination and the proper use of tribunal resources.

The claimant brought unfair dismissal and pregnancy-related claims against her former employer and senior employees. The third respondent, a central witness for the employer, sought to postpone a three-day hearing because of pregnancy-related ill health and stress.

The Employment Tribunal refused the renewed application. Its decision gave no adequate reasons, did not assess the medical evidence or consider a shorter adjournment. It may also have considered material from the claimant that had not been provided to the respondents.

The respondents appealed. With the listed hearing imminent, the Employment Appeal Tribunal set aside the refusal and determined the adjournment application afresh. The central issue was whether the available medical evidence established that the third respondent would be medically unfit to attend.

1. Appeal allowed, but the adjournment application refused afresh. The Employment Tribunal's decision of 8 June 2012 was set aside. It gave no meaningful indication of the factors taken into account or of any assessment of the medical evidence. It addressed only a postponement until March 2013 or later, rather than a shorter adjournment. Its possible reliance on material not disclosed to the respondents was procedurally unfair.

2. An adjournment lies within the Employment Tribunal's discretion. An appeal will not succeed where that discretion has been exercised judicially, with relevant matters considered and irrelevant matters excluded. A necessary party who is genuinely unable, through no fault of their own, to attend may ordinarily require an adjournment to secure the article 6 right to a fair hearing. The applicant bears the burden of proving the need for it.

3. On the fresh application, the medical material did not establish actual or sufficiently likely unfitness to attend. Pregnancy alone did not show incapacity. The references to stress were unsupported by details of symptoms, cause, severity, prognosis or their effect on attendance at a hearing held about seven weeks before the due date. The later medical letter added little and recorded no serious ongoing complication.

4. Fairness to the claimant, the need for prompt resolution and proper use of tribunal resources supported requiring adequate evidence. The scheduled hearing was therefore to proceed unless the Employment Tribunal itself later adjourned it.

5. A further application could be made only on a genuinely new development before the hearing. The respondents could not rely again on evidence or an existing state of affairs that was available by the date of this ruling but had not been properly advanced.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the respondents' appeal, set aside the Employment Tribunal's refusal of an adjournment, and refused the application when determining it afresh: [2012] UKEAT 0381_12_2407.
• Employment Tribunal: Refused the respondents' renewed application on 8 June 2012 to postpone the hearing listed for 1–3 August 2012.