[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Herbert Rapaport Ltd v. Augustine [1999] UKEAT 988_99_0809 (8 September 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/988_99_0809.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 988_99_809, [1999] UKEAT 988_99_0809

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellants	NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
For the Respondent	NO APPEARANCE BY OR REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The Notice of Appeal in this case is dated 7 September and was faxed to us. The Appellant, Herbert Rapaport Ltd, wish to appeal against a listing decision which has been made by an Employment Tribunal. In truth, this is an appeal against the refusal of an Employment Tribunal to grant his application for an adjournment and I shall deal with the appeal on that basis.

1. The Applicant, the Respondent to this appeal, made an application for unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract arising out of the termination of her employment which was with the Appellants from 8 June 1998 to 19 March 1999. Her complaint is dated 14 June and appears to have been received by the Tribunal two days later.
2. The Respondent employers presented their response to this application in their IT3 which is signed and dated 6 July 1999 and stamped as received by the Tribunal on 7 July 1999. What then happened was that a Chairman in the region reviewed the file and made some interlocutory orders. This occurred on or about 5 August 1999. It was obviously a sensible step to take. In their IT3 the employers had asserted that they owed no money to the Applicant but that they in turn had additional claims against her and full statement of claim and details would follow.
3. What the Chairman did was to make a number of orders relating to documents and the exchange of witness statements. The document containing those directions indicated that a Notice of Hearing would be sent in due course. The Notice of Hearing was in fact sent on 10 August indicating that the hearing was going to take place on 14 September. In other words, the Notice of Hearing was sent within some five days of the directions having been made. No doubt the parties had only received those directions a day or so before the Notice of Hearing was sent.
4. Under the order for directions there were periods of time, namely 14 days from the hearing date and seven days from the hearing date for witness statements, which had been included within the order. The first point that was taken by the Appellants was that it was unfair for the Tribunal to list a case so soon after the directions had been made. I reject that complaint, because it seems to me that the time limits which are contained within the directions order date backwards from the hearing date and in my judgment provided adequate time for the parties to prepare themselves for the hearing.
5. The employers asserted that it was unfair for the Tribunal to have listed the case, that it was not effectively possible for them to serve a full counter claim but that they would use their best endeavours. In due course they did provide details of their counter claim which, as I understand it, is dated 31 August 1999 in a document signed by a Mr Rapaport on behalf of his company. That is 14 days before the date fixed for the hearing and there was no reason it seems to me why the bundle of documents and witness statements should not be prepared. The employers also say they have not got adequate information from the terms of the IT1 to start preparing detailed responses to it. That seems to me not to be a justified point of view having regard to the full nature of the alleged counter claim in the papers.
6. There is a rather curious feature about this case which is that at some stage, and in error apparently, the Employment Tribunal made an order dismissing on withdrawal the complaint. That should not have occurred as I understand it and it is a matter of regret that it has happened. The other curiosity is that it seems to me that this is an empty appeal because as I understand the documents provided by the Appellants the parties have managed to reach agreement to settle this matter between themselves with the assistance of ACAS.
7. Whether or not such a settlement has been effected, I must approach this case on the basis that the Employment Tribunal Chairman had a discretion to grant an adjournment or to refuse it. I see nothing in the papers which have been presented to me to suggest that there was any error of law in the way he exercised his discretion. I am not prepared to say that the decision he arrived at was perverse; on the contrary, it seems to me that the matter has been handled correctly apart from the withdrawal order to which I have referred, which was done in error. Accordingly, this appeal will be dismissed.