City of London Corporation v Mcdonnell: EAT 1 Nov 2018

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Postponement or stay
Following a Liability Hearing, the Respondents were found liable for unfair dismissal. They appealed against that finding to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) and the appeal was allowed through the sift and directions given.
Following directions being given by the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) on Remedies, the parties were given nine working days’ notice of a Remedies Hearing. The Respondents immediately applied for a postponement of the Remedies Hearing until after the hearing of the Appeal mainly on the grounds that counsel and the HR representative were not available for the scheduled Remedies Hearing. The Employment Judge (‘EJ’) simply responded by saying that he refused the application because the existence of the Appeal was not a sufficient ground for postponing a Remedies Hearing and that further delay was not in the interests of justice. The Respondents immediately applied for a reconsideration pointing out that the existence of the Appeal was not the primary ground for the application and reminding the EJ of counsel’s availability. The EJ responded in almost identical terms.
The Appeal was allowed: the EJ had either failed to engage with the application as he should have or had given inadequate reasons for his decision. The matter was remitted to the Regional EJ to decide in the light of all relevant matters when the Remedies Hearing should take place.
[2018] UKEAT 0074 – 18 – 0111
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.631854