The claimants complained of unfair dismissal. The appellant company said that the contracts, as apprenticeships, did not give rise to continuous service accruals. The company appealed against a refusal of an adjournment of the hearing.
Held: The appellant had not made out a sufficient error in law to allow the tribunal to overturn the interlocutory decision.
Peter Clark J
[1999] UKEAT 452 – 99 – 1304
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Mentioned – Bastick v James Lane (Turf Accountants) Ltd 1979
The court considered an appeal against a refusal of an adjournment of proceedings before the industrial tribunal when criminal proceedings on the same issues were pending.
Held: The court refused to interfere with the exercise of his dicretion . .
Cited – Carter v Credit Change Ltd CA 2-Jan-1979
There are restricted circumstances in which the tribunal can interfere on appeal with the tribunal’s exercise of its discretion. Stephenson LJ said: ‘All the reasons which he gave seem to me to be good reasons for the decision to which he came; many . .
Cited – Adams and Raynor v West Sussex County Council 1990
The EAT does not have a general power of review of interlocutory orders made by Industrial Tribunals or a Chairman. An appellant must convince the appeal tribunal that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in legal principle in the exercise of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.205059
