Jonathan Bailey Associates (UK) Ltd v. Shapland [2003] UKEAT 0957_03_1012 (10 December 2003)

Jonathan Bailey Associates (UK) Ltd v. Shapland [2003] UKEAT 0957_03_1012 (10 December 2003)

The Tribunal Chairman's refusal to postpone the hearing was not perverse and was supported by adequate reasoning; inconvenience is not sufficient ground for postponement. However, the Chairman erred in refusing to allocate a preliminary hearing on privilege, which should be decided separately to avoid contamination of the substantive Tribunal.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0957_03_1012
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Refusal of Postponement and Preliminary Hearing on Privilege
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of postponement; appeal allowed in respect of preliminary hearing on privilege.
Legal Topics
Employment Tribunal Procedure, Postponement of Hearing, Privilege in Originating Application, Unfair Dismissal, Breach of Contract
Employment Law Civil Procedure Employment Tribunal Procedure Postponement of Hearing Privilege in Originating Application Unfair Dismissal Breach of Contract

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Refusal of Postponement and Preliminary Hearing on Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal Chairman erred in refusing a postponement of the hearing
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal Chairman erred in refusing a preliminary hearing on privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal Chairman's refusal to postpone the hearing was not perverse and was supported by adequate reasoning; inconvenience is not sufficient ground for postponement. However, the Chairman erred in refusing to allocate a preliminary hearing on privilege, which should be decided separately to avoid contamination of the substantive Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of postponement; appeal allowed in respect of preliminary hearing on privilege.

Orders

  • Hearing to proceed on preliminary point of privilege before substantive issues.
  • Skeleton arguments to be exchanged by parties.