EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Postponement or stay
A Tribunal decided to refuse to postpone a hearing, despite the Claimant producing a letter from a consultant psychiatrist which on any fair reading gave a diagnosis (which, being a severe anxiety and depression affecting concentration, and ability to cope, and requiring urgent medical attention made it effectively impossible for the Claimant as a self-represented person to conduct what was to be a 30 day hearing), expressed the opinion that the Claimant was not fit to plead his case, and offered a reasonable prospect of recovery sufficient to permit this albeit after at least three months. There had been no previous application to postpone.
Held: that (whether the appropriate test was that of Wednesbury review, or fairness of which the appellate court was a primary judge) the Employment Tribunal erred in law in so doing. The Claimant had submitted a fuller, earlier report from the same psychiatrist to the ET, which he refused the Respondent permission to see: observations made that a litigant is not entitled to correspond secretly with a court or Tribunal, and as the way in which an ET should deal with such a situation.
Judges:
Langstaff P J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0374 – 11 – 2302
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 06 October 2022; Ref: scu.452496