EAT Practice and Procedure : Case Management – At a case management discussion in July 2011 the Employment Tribunal had said that if the Respondent disputed disability there should be a joint medical expert and fixed the hearing for January 2012. Because of the Claimant’s delays that hearing had to be adjourned and a new timetable fixed in December 2011. In February 2012 the Respondents were in a position to say they disputed disability but they also said they no longer considered that a medical expert was necessary, a position which they maintained up to the substantive hearing. Notwithstanding this the Respondent co-operated to an extent in seeking and naming some suitable experts but the Claimant took no active steps to push matters forward. The hearing had been re-fixed for June 2012, but that hearing was also adjourned due to the Claimant’s ill health. The hearing was re-fixed for February 2013. Shortly before the hearing the Claimant applied to strike out the defence on account of the Respondent’s failure to jointly instruct an expert; the ET refused the application. At the substantive hearing the Claimant applied for a further adjournment so that he could obtain expert medical evidence.
Having looked at the whole correspondence the ET agreed to the adjournment but only on condition that the Claimant make a contribution to the Respondent’s costs of andpound;1,200, at which point the Claimant withdrew his application for an adjournment.
On the Claimant’s appeal against the decision to make the adjournment conditional the EAT decided that the ET’s decision was a perfectly reasonable case management decision well justified in the light of the whole history and the strong element of fault on the Claimant’s side and dismissed the appeal.
Shanks J
[2014] UKEAT 0433 – 13 – 2402
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523670