EAT Practice and Procedure: Postponement or Stay – The Employment Judge was required to give Reasons ‘proportionate to the significance of the issue’ which ‘for decisions other than judgments may be very short’. The Respondent applied for an adjournment making two good points: (1) the Employment Tribunal had asked for dates to avoid; they had been given; the case had been listed in accordance with them; but it had then been adjourned at the Claimant’s request to a date beyond those for which availability had been requested; (2) the key witness, the Respondent’s Chief Executive, had an important conference in Malaysia long booked for the re-listed dates. These were good points; the Employment Judge was not bound to accede to them but he was required succinctly to address them. His Reasons did not show that he had considered them at all or why he rejected them
Richardson HHJ
[2015] UKEAT 0228 – 15 – 2808
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553727