De-Smith v AWE Plc & Ors (Practice and Procedure) [2017] UKEAT 0292_16_3107 (31 July 2017)

De-Smith v AWE Plc & Ors (Practice and Procedure) [2017] UKEAT 0292_16_3107 (31 July 2017)

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law, in principle, or reach a perverse decision in refusing the claimant's application to postpone the hearing on medical grounds. The tribunal properly exercised its discretion, considered all relevant factors, and balanced the interests of both parties in accordance with the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0292_16_3107
Parties
Appellant: Mr E De-Smith; Respondent: AWE PLC & Others
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
31 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Refusal to Adjourn Hearing by Employment Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Case Management, Adjournment of Hearing, Disability Discrimination, Victimisation, Unfair Dismissal
Employment Law Case Management Adjournment of Hearing Disability Discrimination Victimisation Unfair Dismissal

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr E De-Smith

Appellant

AWE PLC & Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Refusal to Adjourn Hearing by Employment Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law or principle in refusing the claimant's application to postpone the hearing on medical grounds
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal failed to make adequate inquiries regarding the claimant's fitness to attend
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in taking into account the delay caused by relisting

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law, in principle, or reach a perverse decision in refusing the claimant's application to postpone the hearing on medical grounds. The tribunal properly exercised its discretion, considered all relevant factors, and balanced the interests of both parties in accordance with the overriding objective.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed