Chang-Tave v Haydon School & Anor [2010] UKEAT 0153_10_0209 (2 September 2010)

Chang-Tave v Haydon School & Anor [2010] UKEAT 0153_10_0209 (2 September 2010)

The Tribunal erred in law by refusing the postponement application despite clear and sufficient medical evidence of the Claimant's inability to attend, and by striking out the claim for late witness statement when the Claimant had complied with the latest Tribunal order. Fairness and the right to a fair trial required an adjournment, and no deliberate or persistent procedural breach was established.

Citation
[2010] UKEAT 0153_10_0209
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mr George Chang-Tave; First Respondent: Haydon School; Second Respondent: Mrs Zia Marchand
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
02 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Refusal of Postponement and Strike Out Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Postponement of Hearing, Strike Out of Claim, Medical Evidence, Unfair Dismissal, Racial Discrimination, Harassment, Victimisation
Employment Law Civil Procedure Postponement of Hearing Strike Out of Claim Medical Evidence Unfair Dismissal Racial Discrimination Harassment +1 more

Case Brief

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr George Chang-Tave

Claimant/appellant

Haydon School

First Respondent

Mrs Zia Marchand

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Refusal of Postponement and Strike Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing postponement on medical grounds
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in striking out the claim for late witness statement despite compliance with the latest order

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by refusing the postponement application despite clear and sufficient medical evidence of the Claimant's inability to attend, and by striking out the claim for late witness statement when the Claimant had complied with the latest Tribunal order. Fairness and the right to a fair trial required an adjournment, and no deliberate or persistent procedural breach was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Strike out order set aside
  • Case to be re-listed for a full merits hearing before a different Tribunal at Watford