Cooper Lovegrove & Associates Ltd v. Lankester [2001] UKEAT 228_01_2602 (26 February 2001)
Refusal of adjournment was perverse as there was no firm evidence that the respondent received the particulars before they were faxed on 23 February.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] UKEAT 228_01_2602
- Parties
- Appellant: Applicant; Respondent: Respondent
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 26 February 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment, Non Payment of Wages, Procedural Fairness
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Applicant
Appellant
Respondent
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether refusal of adjournment was justified given lack of evidence that respondent received particulars of claim
Ratio Decidendi
Refusal of adjournment was perverse as there was no firm evidence that the respondent received the particulars before they were faxed on 23 February.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- adjournment granted
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JUDGMENT Revised © Copyright 2001 APPEARANCES For the Appellant NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT For the Respondent NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT MISS RECORDER SLADE QC This appeal is against a refusal of an adjournment of hearing due to take place tomorrow 27 February in the following circumstances. The Applicant had been directed by letter dated 29 January 2001 to provide a detailed breakdown of her claim. Her claim was for non payment of wages. She was ordered to provide such a breakdown to the Tribunal and the Respondent by 9 February 2001. The Respondent was directed to provide his response to the claim by 20 February 2001. The Respondent asserts that he did not receive the particulars and contacted the Tribunal on or about 23 February as a result of which the particulars which had been faxed to the Tribunal on 8 February 2001 were faxed to him. Enquiries have been made from which it appears that there is no firm evidence on the file that the Respondent was sent the letter of 8 February 2001 before it was faxed to him on 23 February. In those circumstances, it was perverse to refuse the requested adjournment and the appeal is allowed. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII