Andreou v Lord Chancellor’s Department: CA 22 Jul 2002

The Claimant had requested a postponement of the tribunal hearing on the basis of a medical certificate which stated that she was unfit to attend work. It therefore adjourned the proceedings for one week with directions that a medical report be produced detailing the nature of and prognosis of the illness and the reasons why the Claimant was unfit to attend the Tribunal hearing. She failed to provide adequate information about her inability to attend the hearing and as a result the Tribunal struck out her claim on the ground that she had failed to comply with a direction.
Held: It was necessary for a Tribunal to balance fairness to the Claimant with fairness to the employer and with that in mind, included that in that case the Tribunal’s decision had not been perverse. Deference should be given to the exercise of judicial discretion by the inferior tribunal, particularly in circumstances where it is clear that all relevant matters have been weighed up. It is not for the reviewing board to revisit the merits.


Peter Gibson, Arden LJJ, Cresswell J


[2002] EWCA Civ 1192, [2002] IRLR 728




England and Wales


Appeal fromAndreou v Lord Chancellor’s Department EAT 4-Mar-2002
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal . .

Cited by:

CitedBirdi v Dartford Visionplus Ltd and Another EAT 16-Nov-2012
EAT Practice and Procedure : Postponement or Stay – Application of guidance re adjournment in Teinaz and Andreou. Tribunal’s refusal of an adjournment to enable further medical evidence to be obtained was . .
CitedRiley v The Crown Prosecution Service CA 30-Jul-2013
The claimant’s employment action had been struck out when the Tribunal concluded that given the medical evidence a fair trial would not be possible within the forseeable future. . .
CitedOgunbiyi, Regina (on The Application of) v Southend County Court and Another Admn 19-Mar-2015
Application for judicial review of a decision of a Circuit Judge at the County Court, (a) refusing permission to appeal again the judgment of a Deputy District Judge following a trial of the claim for damages again the claimant under a hire purchase . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217346