North Yorkshire Police & Ors v Ashurst & Ors [1995] UKEAT 1280_95_2012 (20 December 1995)

North Yorkshire Police & Ors v Ashurst & Ors [1995] UKEAT 1280_95_2012 (20 December 1995)

The refusal to adjourn was an error of law because the Regional Chairman failed to properly consider the reasoning and effect of the Appeal Tribunal's decision in the Rose case, which was indistinguishable. There was a real risk of prejudice to both the disciplinary and tribunal proceedings if the Industrial Tribunal hearing proceeded first. The public interest in fairness to all parties and in both proceedings required postponement.

Citation
[1995] UKEAT 1280_95_2012
Parties
1st Appellant: North Yorkshire Police; 2nd Appellant: Chief Constable of North Yorkshire; 3rd Appellant: Detective Chief Inspector Hallinan; 1st Respondent: Miss E Ashurst; 2nd Respondent: Detective Constable P Raynor; 3rd Respondent: Detective Chief Inspector Barlow
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Adjourn Industrial Tribunal Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Harassment, Victimisation, Adjournment of Proceedings, Disciplinary Proceedings, Vicarious Liability
Employment Law Police Law Sex Discrimination Harassment Victimisation Adjournment of Proceedings Disciplinary Proceedings Vicarious Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

North Yorkshire Police

1st Appellant

Chief Constable of North Yorkshire

2nd Appellant

Detective Chief Inspector Hallinan

3rd Appellant

Miss E Ashurst

1st Respondent

Detective Constable P Raynor

2nd Respondent

Detective Chief Inspector Barlow

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Adjourn Industrial Tribunal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in refusing to adjourn proceedings pending internal police disciplinary proceedings
  2. 2 Whether refusal to adjourn caused prejudice or risked unfairness to parties

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to adjourn was an error of law because the Regional Chairman failed to properly consider the reasoning and effect of the Appeal Tribunal's decision in the Rose case, which was indistinguishable. There was a real risk of prejudice to both the disciplinary and tribunal proceedings if the Industrial Tribunal hearing proceeded first. The public interest in fairness to all parties and in both proceedings required postponement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Industrial Tribunal hearing postponed to first available date after 1st July 1996, with liberty to apply if delay exceeds envisaged period.