EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL
A pre-hearing review, initially listed for half a day, had still not been concluded 133 hearing days later. The Claimant was not at fault in any way for this. The principal reason was her serious illness (sarcoidosis), and its consequent effects on the timetable. At a time when the Claimant’s case had closed and a central witness for the Respondent was under cross-examination, with two other witnesses still to be called, the Judge of his own motion decided to consider whether he should strike out the claim on the basis that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing (under rule 18(7)(f) of the Tribunal Rules). He saw no end to the case, and identified prejudice in the continuing cost to the Respondent and the possible absence of a witness in Tanzania.
It was HELD that this approach was in error. To say that ‘no end was in sight’ was an overstatement given the stage the case had reached; he could have but did not ask for more detailed medical material; did not sufficiently consider the use of case management powers to ensure expeditious hearing; did not appreciate the impact the determination of the pre-hearing review might have on the claim as a whole, and the basis for his decision was insufficient.
Judges:
Langstaff J P
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0629 – 11 – 2003
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.454084