Sean Thomas Leacy v Building Craft College

A late application to postpone an appeal in order to provide particulars of alleged procedural unfairness may properly be refused where the allegations could previously have been particularised. The Employment Appeal Tribunal must apply the overriding objective fairly to both parties. It may take account of the likely delay, expense, uncertain utility of further evidence, and the need to use appellate resources effectively. A general allegation that questioning was curtailed does not substitute for identifying the questions, documents or incidents relied upon.

The claimant appealed from an Employment Tribunal judgment given after a hearing in September 2019. His notice of appeal alleged, among other matters, that the Tribunal's allocation of hearing time and curtailment of his questioning had made the hearing unfair.

At the start of the Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing, the claimant sought a postponement. He wished to provide a statement and a list of questions he said he had been prevented from asking, and to seek the Tribunal's notes of his cross-examination. The central issue was whether postponement was consistent with the overriding objective.

1. Application refused. The Tribunal refused to postpone the appeal hearing. It would not be just or proportionate to delay the appeal so that the claimant could now particularise broad allegations concerning curtailed questioning and obtain further material.

2. The claimant had not given particulars of the alleged procedural irregularities. Paragraph 12.1 of the EAT Practice Direction required full particulars in a notice of appeal raising such complaints. Although the claimant had been unrepresented when lodging the notice, he could have identified the particular questions, documents and circumstances relied upon.

3. The proposed further process was likely to be lengthy. It might not yield material capable of assisting the appeal. It could also require an amendment to the notice of appeal if the claimant advanced a new, specific allegation, such as being prevented from putting a document to a witness.

4. The Tribunal had sufficient material to determine the principal complaint concerning the overall allocation of hearing time. Postponement would cause substantial delay and additional expense, waste the two days and full panel allocated to the appeal, and adversely affect the timely determination of other appeals. Those considerations meant that postponement would not comply with the overriding objective.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: the claimant's appeal from an Employment Tribunal judgment was dismissed. This decision records the reasons for refusing his application to postpone the appeal hearing.
• Employment Tribunal: judgment given following a hearing in September 2019; no citation is stated.