Holman v. Dyfed Probation Services [2003] UKEAT 7_03_1001 (10 January 2003)

Holman v. Dyfed Probation Services [2003] UKEAT 7_03_1001 (10 January 2003)

No error of law was made by the Tribunal Chairman in refusing postponement; the decision was within discretion and balanced fairness and expedition. New arguments regarding personal injury claim and procedural rules were not properly before the Tribunal and cannot be entertained on appeal.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 7_03_1001
Parties
Applicant: Mrs Holman; Respondent: Probation Service
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Interlocutory Order (postponement Refusal) / Employment Appeal Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Postponement of Hearing, Disclosure, Case Management, Costs
Employment Law Civil Procedure Postponement of Hearing Disclosure Case Management Costs

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Holman

Applicant

Probation Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Interlocutory Order (postponement Refusal) / Employment Appeal Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal Chairman erred in law by refusing postponement
  2. 2 Whether procedural rules applicable to High Court should apply to Employment Tribunal
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the Applicant

Ratio Decidendi

No error of law was made by the Tribunal Chairman in refusing postponement; the decision was within discretion and balanced fairness and expedition. New arguments regarding personal injury claim and procedural rules were not properly before the Tribunal and cannot be entertained on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs of £1500 plus VAT ordered against Applicant, payable within fourteen days