Appeal No.	 EAT/178/99

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 9 February 1999

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT)
MR A E R MANNERS
MR R SANDERSON OBE

NORMAN CARLESS & CO	APPELLANTS

MRS P DUNN	RESPONDENT

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

INTERLOCUTORY

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellants	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS	
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):	This is an appeal against a refusal by an Employment Tribunal to take out of their list for tomorrow a case in which Mrs Dunn and her former employers, Norman Carless & Co are involved. Mrs Dunn had presented an application complaining of unfair dismissal by Norman Carless & Co, her employers from 1985 until 14th November 1997.

	During the course of the litigation the tribunal Chairman gave certain directions. The appellants, Norman Carless & Co say that  Mrs Dunn has failed to comply with those directions and accordingly the appellants will be left without sufficient time to prepare their own case. Their letter to the tribunal seeking an adjournment was dated 4th February. By letter dated 8th February the tribunal wrote back refusing the application for an adjournment, and it is against that this appeal lies.

	As we have pointed out in the past, decisions whether or not to adjourn cases are very much within the exclusive discretion of Employment Tribunals. There are occasions in which we are prepared to interfere where, it seems to us, evident that justice will be denied. This is not such a case. When the case is called on for hearing tomorrow it will be open to Messrs Carless & Co to make a submission to the Employment Tribunal that they have been prejudiced, if that is their contention, and at that stage the Employment Tribunal will be able to judge the merits of any such application. It may be possible to use part of the time to get the hearing underway, or, it may be possible to make use of the time in some other way. 

	It seems to us, accordingly, that the decision of the tribunal cannot be faulted in refusing to grant an adjournment so soon before the case was due to come on for hearing, bearing in mind that a fresh application for an adjournment can always be made on the day of the hearing if appropriate. The appeal is dismissed.