Ashton & Anor v Burbage and District Constitutional Club

An appellate tribunal will rarely interfere with an employment tribunal's case-management discretion. It may do so where the decision rests on an erroneous consideration, including a conclusion contradicted by the evidence before the tribunal.

Where a postponement is sought on medical grounds, the tribunal must balance the parties' interests on the reasons it actually gives. A refusal based on there being no prospect that delay will improve a claimant's condition cannot stand where medical evidence indicates that postponement may manage and reduce the relevant stress.

The claimants brought claims for unfair dismissal and sums allegedly due during their employment as the respondent club's stewards. Their claims were listed before the Leicester Employment Tribunal.

Following disclosure which caused them distress, the claimants sought a postponement on medical grounds. Their general practitioner requested that meetings be postponed for two months to manage and reduce their stress. The Employment Judge refused the final application, stating that delay was unlikely to make their position easier.

The claimants did not attend the hearing. The Employment Tribunal proceeded in their absence and ultimately dismissed the substantive claims, apart from a small monetary award. They appealed only the refusal of the final adjournment application.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Judge's refusal of the final adjournment application was vitiated by an error of law. The resulting proceedings and decision had to be set aside.

2. Case-management decisions, including adjournments, attract substantial appellate deference. Intervention is nevertheless available where the tribunal takes account of an irrelevant matter, fails to take account of a relevant matter, or reaches a decision outside the wide bounds of reasonable discretion.

3. The Judge was entitled to balance the respondent's position against that of the claimants. However, the stated reason that delay was unlikely to make matters easier for the claimants was unsustainable. The general practitioner's letter expressly indicated a real prospect that a two-month postponement would manage and reduce their stress.

4. It was immaterial whether the Employment Judge had seen the representative's letter drawing attention to that timeframe. If it had not been seen, it should have been; if it had been seen, the stated conclusion still contradicted the medical evidence. The absence of an express statement that the claimants were unfit to attend the tribunal could not justify the refusal, because that was not the reason given.

5. The refusal and all that followed it were set aside. The claims were remitted for determination on their merits by a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal, set aside the refusal of an adjournment and the ensuing decision, and remitted the claims to a differently constituted tribunal.
• Leicester Employment Tribunal: refused the final adjournment application, proceeded in the claimants' absence, and dismissed the substantive claims apart from a small monetary award.