Siemens Metering Ltd v. Mahmud [2000] UKEAT 312_2000_2203 (22 March 2000)

Siemens Metering Ltd v. Mahmud [2000] UKEAT 312_2000_2203 (22 March 2000)

The Chairman did not err in law; there was no evidence Mr Miller was unfit to attend, and ample time for preparation had been available. The refusal to postpone was within the Chairman's discretion and not perverse.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 312_2000_2203
Parties
Respondent: Siemens Metering Ltd; Applicant: Mr Mahmud
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Refusal to Postpone Substantive Hearing
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Postponement of Hearing, Unfair Dismissal, Breach of Contract, Unauthorised Wage Deductions
Employment Law Postponement of Hearing Unfair Dismissal Breach of Contract Unauthorised Wage Deductions

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

Parties

Siemens Metering Ltd

Respondent

Mr Mahmud

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Refusal to Postpone Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chairman erred in law by refusing to postpone the substantive hearing
  2. 2 Whether the injury and absence of Mr Miller justified an adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

The Chairman did not err in law; there was no evidence Mr Miller was unfit to attend, and ample time for preparation had been available. The refusal to postpone was within the Chairman's discretion and not perverse.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed