[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Robinson v. Home Office [2001] UKEAT 533_01_1909 (19 September 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/533_01_1909.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 533_01_1909, [2001] UKEAT 533_1_1909

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	IN PERSON


 


MR RECORDER LANGSTAFF QC:

1. This is a preliminary hearing which comes before us from the Employment Tribunal sitting at London South. It sat on 22 February 2001 and gave Extended Reasons for its decision on 15 March 2001. By those Reasons it dismissed the Appellant's complaints of discrimination against him on the grounds of sex and of race.
2. The circumstances in which those claims arose are not material to the basis of the appeal before us. Essentially, the Tribunal was disabled from determining either of those claims in the Appellant's favour by his non-appearance. His non-appearance was, he says, because he was suffering a urinary infection which did not make it practicable or reasonable to be present. He had notified the Employment Tribunal of this illness and asked that the hearing date be adjourned. In essence, therefore, this appeal is against the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion not to grant that adjournment.
3. We consider that it is arguable that that discretion was exercised on a wrong basis. The reasons why we think it is arguable is that the Tribunal had before it medical evidence consisting of two medical certificates. The eventual conclusion that the Tribunal reached at paragraph 10 was that it was not satisfied as to the medical evidence presented. No reason is given for the lack of satisfaction, although it is fair to say that in an affidavit presented to us by the Appellant there is a letter which amplifies that reasoning. However, in paragraph 9 there is a reference to a second medical certificate which was purportedly issued, (I draw attention to the word "purportedly") by the same medical practice which had posted the first certificate. The word "purported" is used twice in that paragraph.
4. It appears to us that the Tribunal were, in effect, regarding the certificate which was, on the face of it a proper medical certificate, as in some way false or fraudulent. The evidential basis for so concluding is, we think, open to argument. If that conclusion was reached on no proper basis or after insufficient enquiry, if it was incumbent upon the Tribunal in the circumstances to make such an enquiry before reaching such a conclusion, then we think it highly arguable that this Tribunal would have granted an adjournment in the circumstances of the urinary infection as revealed by the Appellant's letter and reported in his affidavit.
5. Accordingly, we think the matter should be argued fully. It should take no more than one hour to hear. We think it is Category B. Skeleton arguments to be restricted to the issue as we have defined it, to be delivered no less than 14 days prior to the hearing together with copies of any authorities to be relied upon. If there are any authorities relating to the conclusiveness of a medical certificate they would be helpful.
6. We do not think that it is necessary to amend the Notice of Appeal. The appeal should be conducted in accordance with this short judgment.