Sefton MBC & Anor v Lunn & Ors [1995] UKEAT 1308_95_1212 (12 December 1995)

The Chairman's refusal to adjourn was not an erroneous exercise of discretion nor a conclusion no reasonable Chairman could have reached; there was no error of law.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [1995] UKEAT 1308_95_1212
Parties: 1st Appellant: Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council; 2nd Appellant: Chatterton (Building Services) Ltd; Respondents: Applicants (137 individuals, represented by four trade unions)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 12 December 1995
Procedural Posture: Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Adjournment at Preliminary Hearing
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Adjournment of Hearings, Tribunal Discretion, Transfer of Undertakings, Conciliation Procedures

Employment Law Industrial Relations Adjournment of Hearings Tribunal Discretion Transfer of Undertakings Conciliation Procedures

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

1st Appellant

Chatterton (Building Services) Ltd

2nd Appellant

Applicants (137 individuals, represented by four trade unions)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Adjournment at Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Chairman erred in law by refusing adjournment for settlement negotiations
2 Whether the Chairman applied the correct legal test for adjournment discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Chairman's refusal to adjourn was not an erroneous exercise of discretion nor a conclusion no reasonable Chairman could have reached; there was no error of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

No adjournment granted
Hearing to proceed as scheduled

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.