[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Yugaraj v Telegraph Service Stations Ltd [1997] UKEAT 525_97_0711 (7 November 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/525_97_0711.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 525_97_711, [1997] UKEAT 525_97_0711

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR F SLEVIN (of Counsel) Nathan & Co Solicitors 106 Kingston Road London SW19 1LX


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in relation to the way the tribunal has dealt with Mr Yugaraj's complaint which he had brought against Telegraph Service Stations Ltd, the respondent.

What happened was that on the day fixed for the hearing an application had been made on Mr Yugaraj's behalf that the matter be adjourned. Three days prior to that, as we understand it, the tribunal had been notified that Mr Yugaraj would be unable appear as he was ill.

The Industrial Tribunal, under the Chairmanship of Mrs Mason, declined the application for an adjournment in reasons which were set out in paragraph 3 of the decision. It seems to us that it is reasonably arguable that the way the tribunal approached the question of an adjournment was unjust, and therefore, perverse. If somebody is genuinely ill and unable to attend, then the question arises as to the circumstances in which a tribunal should continue to hear the case in his absence. There is a further question as to whether a costs order was a judicial exercise of discretion.

In our view, therefore, this should go for full hearing. I would like to allocate this case to Judge Peter Clark. I would estimate that it would take two hours, and I would list it as a Category C case.

I would like to add to my judgment and indicate that although the Industrial Tribunal decision is in summary reasoned form, we are content to deal with the appeal on the limited ground that I have indicated. We regard what was set out in paragraph 3 of the decision as being an extensive and sufficient recitation of the reasons for the refusal of the adjournment to enable us to hear the appeal.