Neckles v. Abellio London Ltd

An Employment Judge has a discretionary case-management power to adjourn a hearing. An appellate tribunal will not interfere unless the decision involved an error of law or was one which no reasonable tribunal could make.

The possibility of inconsistent findings in related proceedings is relevant, but does not itself require an adjournment. The overriding objective requires a practical assessment of fairness, proportionality, delay and expense. Where a party has had ample opportunity to provide evidence, a tribunal may fairly determine the issue before it even though another court may later decide a related issue differently on different evidence.

The claimant appealed against a costs reconsideration decision of Employment Judge Williams. The Judge increased a costs award from £10,000 to £20,000 after finding that the claimant had misled the Tribunal about his interest in his former matrimonial home.

Related County Court proceedings later determined, on additional evidence from the claimant’s former wife, that a trust deed was valid and that the claimant had no beneficial interest in the property. The sole live ground of appeal was that the Employment Judge should have adjourned the reconsideration hearing of her own motion pending that County Court outcome.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Judge was not required to adjourn the reconsideration hearing pending the County Court proceedings.

2. A decision whether to adjourn is a discretionary case-management decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal would intervene only for an error of law or a decision which no reasonable tribunal could have made.

3. No application had been made for an adjournment specifically to await the County Court’s determination. The claimant instead submitted that the Tribunal had to accept the trust deed as valid. That submission was rightly rejected. Although the Tribunal could not determine claims concerning a trust deed as the County Court could, it could assess the reliability and honesty of information supplied about the claimant’s means when considering costs.

4. The Employment Judge was entitled to apply the overriding objective in Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2013, rule 2. Proceeding avoided delay and further expense, and it was proportionate to determine an issue which was not particularly complex. The claimant had ample time to file evidence, but did not file witness statements, give evidence, or call witnesses.

5. The risk of inconsistent decisions was relevant but not decisive. The County Court’s later different conclusion rested on additional evidence. That possibility did not make the Tribunal hearing unfair or unjust when it took place.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed against Employment Judge Williams’s decision of 25 July 2016, which increased the costs order from £10,000 to £20,000.
• Employment Tribunal: Employment Judge Williams reconsidered an earlier costs judgment and found that the claimant had misled the Tribunal concerning his interest in property.