Grabe v. Synod of German-speaking Lutheran, Reformed and United Congregations in Great Britain & Anor

An appellate tribunal may interfere with an employment tribunal’s discretionary case-management decision only for an error of law. Intervention is confined to cases where the tribunal applied a wrong principle, omitted a legally material consideration, took account of an irrelevant matter, or reached a perverse decision.

When determining an adjournment on health grounds, the tribunal must apply the overriding objective. It must fairly consider the claimant’s health and need for adjustments, while also weighing the respondent’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and the need to avoid delay. A request for an indefinite stay is materially different from a request for a defined period to permit treatment.

The Claimant appealed against Employment Judge Grewal’s order of 7 July 2017. The order declined to stay her 2016 employment proceedings until completion of separate proceedings, commenced in 2012, concerning earlier employment within the United Reformed Church.

The Claimant relied on medical evidence that simultaneously managing two complex cases aggravated physical and psychiatric ill health. The Employment Judge postponed the 2016 hearing for six months, made no immediate compliance orders, and arranged case management intended to avoid concurrent preparation. The central issue was whether declining the requested lengthy and indefinite stay disclosed an error of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Judge’s decision was a discretionary case-management decision. The Employment Appeal Tribunal could intervene only for an error of law: a wrong legal principle, failure to consider a legally relevant matter, reliance on an irrelevant matter, or perversity.

2. The same appellate limits apply to adjournment applications. Health-related adjournments may require a difficult balance between the parties’ competing interests and the interests of justice. There is often no single correct outcome.

3. The Employment Judge correctly applied the overriding objective in Rule 2 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. She considered the Claimant’s health, reasonable adjustments, equality of arms and Article 6 interests, but also the need to avoid delay and the Respondents’ entitlement to resolution within a reasonable time.

4. The medical evidence supporting the application did not require the Employment Judge to order the lengthy and indefinite stay sought. She was entitled to distinguish that application from a short, defined adjournment to allow recuperation and antidepressant treatment. The contemporaneous evidence relied on for the stay did not repeat the earlier request for such treatment time.

5. The Employment Judge had considered the medical evidence and adopted a rational plan to separate preparation for the two proceedings as far as practicable. Her decision was neither unlawful nor perverse.

6. The Claimant remained free to make a fresh application to the Employment Tribunal based on updated medical evidence. If a further adjournment were sought, evidence from the treating medical practitioner identifying the treatment timescale would assist the Tribunal.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal upheld Employment Judge Grewal’s order of 7 July 2017 declining to stay the 2016 proceedings until completion of the separate 2012 proceedings.
• Employment Tribunal: Employment Judge Grewal postponed the 2016 proceedings for six months and made no immediate compliance orders, rather than granting the requested lengthy stay.