Morton v Eastleigh Citizens Advice Bureau

An Employment Tribunal has a broad case-management discretion over adjournments. An appellate tribunal will intervene only where the discretion was exercised on a wrong basis, perversely, or so as to deprive a party of a fair hearing.

A tribunal may be required to adjourn or adjust its procedure for an unrepresented party with mental-health difficulties where fairness requires it. The need for an adjustment depends on the evidence and the party’s ability to participate. Where there is no medical evidence of unfitness, the party can present the case, and a written-submissions adjournment addresses later difficulty, a further adjournment is not required.

The Claimant appealed against the Southampton Employment Tribunal’s refusal to adjourn a preliminary hearing on disability and its subsequent finding that, apart from an admitted binge eating disorder, she was not disabled by depression, anxiety or agoraphobia.

She contended that she lacked adequate time to prepare, had received the hearing bundle late, required a joint medical report, and could not adequately represent herself because of her mental-health condition. The central issue was whether the Employment Judge was obliged to adjourn the hearing, either because of the preparation difficulties or as an adjustment required for a fair hearing.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Judge was entitled to refuse the application to adjourn. The decision was a discretionary case-management decision. There was no material failure to consider relevant matters, perversity, or unfairness.

2. The late bundle caused no irremediable prejudice. It largely comprised documents with which the Claimant should have been familiar. The few unfamiliar documents were irrelevant to the disability issue. Her impact statement stood as her evidence in chief, the Respondent called no witnesses, and no formal list of issues or chronology was needed to identify the discrete medical issue.

3. The Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the hearing could fairly proceed without a joint medical report. The Claimant knew from the direction of 19 October 2017 that this was possible. The existing medical evidence and her oral evidence could address the issue.

4. Although a tribunal may sometimes have to adjourn of its own motion where an unrepresented litigant’s mental-health condition would otherwise prevent a fair hearing, that threshold was not met. The Claimant had not made an adjournment application on the ground that her health prevented participation. There was no medical evidence that she was unfit, needed more preparation time, or required a particular procedural adjustment.

5. The Claimant was able to make substantial submissions and answer cross-examination. When she later struggled with oral closing submissions, the Employment Judge adjourned to allow written submissions. That was an effective adjustment, and no further adjustment was required. The disability finding rested on the medical evidence, particularly Dr Shand’s report, rather than on her demeanour.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed; the refusal to adjourn the preliminary hearing was upheld.
• Employment Tribunal, Southampton: At a preliminary hearing on 30 October 2017, the Tribunal refused an adjournment and later found that the Claimant was not disabled by depression, anxiety or agoraphobia. Its reserved judgment was sent to the parties on 14 December 2017.