Appeal No.	 EAT/842/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 14 July 1997

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MORISON (P)
MRS T A MARSLAND
MR R H PHIPPS

MR J HOMER	APPELLANT

ENGINEERS & MANAGERS ASSOCIATION	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

INTERLOCUTORY HEARING

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	IN PERSON	
For the Respondents	NO APPEARANCE BY 
OR REPRESENTATION
ON BEHALF OF
THE RESPONDENTS	

	MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT):     This is an interlocutory appeal against a refusal of an Industrial Tribunal to adjourn a case which is due to be heard on 14 July, tomorrow.

	The sequence of events, in brief, is that on 12 May 1997, Mr Homer presented an application to an Industrial Tribunal complaining that he had been unfairly dismissed.  At some stage around 3 June 1997, his employers filed their IT3.  They are asserting that they had good reason to dismiss the Applicant from their employment, and say that there are monies which are outstanding and due from him to them and refer to a letter of 12 May 1997, which they say evidences an agreement by the Applicant that he owes them the sum of £22,714.99.

	On 13 June, or thereabouts, Mr Homer received from the Industrial Tribunal a notification that the date of hearing was to be 14 July.  He has written to the Industrial Tribunal asking for that date to be postponed.  He wants more time to prepare himself for the hearing and he refers, in particular, to a conversation which he had with the Chief Executive of the former employers on 30 June, at which the possibility of a postponement was discussed between them.

	He feels aggrieved, in our view not without some justification, that his correspondence with the Industrial Tribunal was not dealt with as quickly as perhaps it should have been but, at all events, the Industrial Tribunal by letter dated 9 July 1997, informed Mr Homer that his request for a postponement had been refused:

“It is two months since the case was started and some weeks since the Notice of Hearing was issued.  That is sufficient time to have instructed a representative.”

	These are always difficult decisions for the Employment Appeal Tribunal.  The position in law is, that an Industrial Tribunal is master of its own proceedings, and that this court will only interfere with decisions of this nature where it appears that the Industrial Tribunal has misdirected itself or acted perversely.  

	Mr Homer, in a very modest and appropriate submission, has suggested to us that justice really can only be done if we were to allow the appeal but, on the other hand, sees that there may be some merit in the hearing taking place tomorrow, so as to bring the parties to one particular place at one particular time, and if there are discussions which they can hold between them, which might be fruitful, this would be a sensible occasion on which it could occur.

	Nothing that we say in dismissing this appeal, should be taken as determining what would happen if Mr Homer were to repeat any application tomorrow for an adjournment; we make no comment about that, one way or the other.  That again, will be a matter for the Industrial Tribunal to determine.  We would have hoped very much, bearing in mind Mr Homer’s general attitude to these proceedings, that it will be unnecessary in the end for there to be any Tribunal hearing at all in relation to this matter.

	We are satisfied the Tribunal has not erred in law, has not misdirected itself and accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.