Lunn v Aston Darby Group Ltd & Anor (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Postponement or stay) [2018] UKEAT 0039_18_2602 (26 February 2018)

Lunn v Aston Darby Group Ltd & Anor (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Postponement or stay) [2018] UKEAT 0039_18_2602 (26 February 2018)

The Employment Tribunal erred by construing section 128(5) ERA 1996 too restrictively, failing to recognise that the Claimants' inability to obtain alternative representation due to direct access arrangements constituted special circumstances. The refusal to postpone was perverse given the lack of prejudice to Respondents and the minimal delay requested.

Citation
[2018] UKEAT 0039_18_2602
Parties
Appellant: Claimants; Respondent: First and Second Respondents
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
26 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Full Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Postponement of Hearing, Interim Relief, Whistleblowing, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Practice and Procedure Postponement of Hearing Interim Relief Whistleblowing Statutory Interpretation

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

Parties

Claimants

Appellant

First and Second Respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Full Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing to postpone an interim relief hearing under section 128(5) Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances constituted 'special circumstances' justifying postponement
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal fettered its discretion by interpreting 'special circumstances' as 'exceptional circumstances'

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred by construing section 128(5) ERA 1996 too restrictively, failing to recognise that the Claimants' inability to obtain alternative representation due to direct access arrangements constituted special circumstances. The refusal to postpone was perverse given the lack of prejudice to Respondents and the minimal delay requested.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • ET's decision set aside
  • Hearing to be postponed and urgently relisted by Regional Employment Judge