[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Daughters of the Cross of Liege (St Anthony's Hospital) v. Shantikumar [2001] UKEAT 787_01_2111 (21 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/787_01_2111.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 787_01_2111, [2001] UKEAT 787_1_2111

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr Colin Henson Representative Professional Personnel Consultants Ltd Enterprise House Great North Road Little Paxton Cambridgeshire PE19 6BP


 


JUDGE D PUGSLEY

1. In this case we find ourselves in some considerable difficulty because at the eleventh hour, we have been told something that totally alters the complexion of the issue. The Tribunal, in a Summary Decision, as far as remedy were concerned, decided that they were not prepared to issue Extended Reasons because the Respondent's representatives, a firm of employment consultants, had not asked for an Order in time.
2. The Tribunal concluded that the circumstances attributable to her dismissal made her unfit to find work for a period. It decided that after a period of six months from her dismissal, however, it would have been reasonable for her to have made efforts to find work. If she had done so she would have found work immediately at equivalent wages to those she received at the hospital. The loss of her pension contributions would have continued until her retirement had finally taken place when she turned 60 on 24 March 2001.
3. We are bound to say that prima facie there does not seem to us anything particularly striking about the award of six months, which is a period which Tribunals often reach, and we question the wisdom of this appeal, if we may. But we are very concerned at what has been suddenly said, that effectively the Tribunal failed to allow an adjournment in order that the Respondents could ascertain the medical position of the Applicant, or at any rate, ask that the Applicant produce medical evidence to substantiate it, if that is possible.
4. We therefore direct this case be adjourned. We do not reserve it to ourselves, that would involve the unfairness of delay because of the difficulties of convening again. We therefore direct that if this matter is to be pursued, the representative file an affidavit setting out the circumstances in which they say they were denied the opportunity of seeking an adjournment.
5. We are bound to say there is no requirement to produce independent medical evidence to support a claim. Tribunals and Courts frequently have to do the best they can, and the whole tenor of the modern reforms of civil procedure is to try and keep down the costs so that they do not escalate out of proportion. We do not accept the proposition made in the Skeleton Argument that the Tribunal should have made enquiries itself, and found corroborating evidence, that would be totally to misunderstand the independence of any judicial enquiry. An affidavit should be sworn by the person who was responsible for conducting the case, that should be served on the Chairman, who should be given the opportunity to comment, if he can remember what did happen. The case should be relisted as another preliminary hearing, so that the matter will then be on a surer basis - an ex parte preliminary hearing. We adjourn it, but not to ourselves.