[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service v. Carrington & Ors [2001] UKEAT 425_01_0205 (2 May 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/425_01_0205.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 425_01_0205, [2001] UKEAT 425_1_205

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MISS N KHALIQUE Instructed by Messrs Paris & Co Solicitors The Marble Lodge Cocksparrow Street Warwick CV34 4ED


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES

1. This is an appeal against a refusal to grant an adjournment of the remedies hearing. It is unclear to us why this Appeal came before us by way of Preliminary Hearing rather than in accordance with the practice in respect of Interlocutory Appeals. Very shortly as we understand the position there were some agreed directions. After that the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service changed solicitors albeit we do not see that as a reason for granting an adjournment. The directions included directions as to the exchange of medical evidence.
2. The Applicants produced their medical evidence a little late in accordance with the timetable and the timetable was extended. The Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service have asserted they are now in difficulties in meeting that timetable and having their medical evidence available at the hearing. The assertion as we understand it is that the doctor they have been able to contact who could see the Applicants and prepare a report before the hearing is not going to be in the country on the dates of the hearing.
3. We were also told that the Applicants have not particularised their case in damages to any great extent. The employers' understanding is that they are advancing a claim based on their medical condition in particular stress flowing from the events that took place. This applies to all three Applicants and Mr Green as the Extended Reasons show was in fact absent sick and remained absent sick as far as I can see throughout the entire process. Messrs Ash and Carrington have been suspended on full pay and the correspondence we have seen indicates that it thought that they have recently returned to work.
4. It seems to us that although we have not seen the medical reports that there is certainly going to be an issue as to causation on which for there to be a fair hearing the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service will need their own medical evidence to be able to put it to the medical expert evidence advanced on behalf of the Applicants. It therefore seems to us that albeit that this appeal relates to a matter of discretion that this is a case in which it is reasonably arguable that the Employment Tribunal erred in law in the exercise of their discretion in refusing a postponement.
5. We have received a letter from the representatives of the Applicants. If as is the case we conclude that the appeal is arguable they invite us to list it for haring by way of Interlocutory Appeal before the due dates (17 and 18 May) if that is clearly practical. We have to say that if that had not been practical, which it is, we would have been minded to grant a stay on the basis of the argument I have just referred to, namely that on what we have seen it does appear to us that fairness requires that the employer has the benefit of medical evidence on the remedies hearing.
6. But a date is available. It is a date which is convenient to the Applicants' representative but unfortunately not convenient to the Appellant's representative. I am afraid that the Appellant will simply have to live with that. We will list the Interlocutory Appeal for 8 May.
7. We would however urge both sides to look at the issues on that Interlocutory Appeal having regard to the comments we have made as to whether or not it should proceed (and our decision to allow the appeal against the Liability Decision to proceed to a full hearing). If the interlocutory appeal is argued and the Tribunal that hears it is of the view that it ought to succeed on the basis of the arguments we have expressed they might take that into account when considering costs.