[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Nathan v. The Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [1999] UKEAT 692_99_1006 (10 June 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/692_99_1006.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 692_99_1006

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR U UTIP (Representative)
For the Respondents	MR R HILL (of Counsel) Instructed By: Mr J Maskell Department of Trade & Industry Room 221 10 Victoria Street London SW1H ONN


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES: We have before us an appeal by Mr Nathan against an order of a Chairman of an Employment Tribunal refusing an adjournment. His appeal has been presented very clearly, politely and helpfully, by a friend of his.

The background to the matter is as follows. Prior to 8 February the Secretary of State, who had commenced certain proceedings against Mr Nathan or a company that he runs, had served those proceedings, as we understand it, on the wrong address and therefore, when the matter came on on 8 February, it was accepted by the Tribunal that Mr Nathan had not had sufficient time to prepare his case because he had not had the documents and material for very long. On that day an order was made that:

"(i) the Respondent be given leave to file a Notice of Appearance on or before 26 February, 1999

(ii) the Applicant is to serve on the Respondent a revised bundle of documents to include the whole of the documentary evidence against him

(iii) there be mutual exchange of witness statements no later than five weeks before the hearing

(iv) no later than four weeks before the hearing the Applicants are to prepare the agreed bundle with a supplementary bundle to contain all the witnesses statements on behalf of both parties

(v) neither party is permitted to rely on any other documentary evidence not previously disclosed to the other party without the leave of the Tribunal.

The service of a revised bundle of documents to include the documentary evidence against the Respondent is not time limited on the face of the order

The assertion that is made before us is, that neither that bundle of documents or any witness statements were received by the Respondent until just about five weeks before the hearing which was, I think, possibly two to three days late on the time table, relating to the witness statements

The position put on behalf of Mr Nathan was also put before the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal and was that he has thereby suffered prejudice in the preparation of his defence and that such prejudice is sufficiently serious to warrant the abandonment of proceedings which are set for hearing over 15, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 23 June 1999; those proceedings being regulatory proceedings in the public interest.

No specific grounds of prejudice have been put other than allegations as to lateness of the service of documents on behalf of the Secretary of State, firstly, having regard to what was submitted to us to be the understanding on 8 February, namely that Mr Nathan would get a revised bundle of documents at a much earlier date and secondly, that the witness statements from the Secretary of State arrived a few days late.

At this stage I pause to comment that no witness statements at all have been served on behalf of the Respondent.

In our judgment it is clear that the Respondent has known from at least 8 February the general substance of the case that is made against him by the Secretary of State, such prejudice as he may have suffered by not having the revised bundle and/or the written statements and the further details of that case earlier does not, in our judgment, go anywhere near establishing that it would be appropriate to adjourn this case or that it would have been appropriate for the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal to have adjourned it on 14 May. At that stage Mr Nathan and his company had about a month to prepare their case. They must know what they do in running that company. In our judgment we cannot see that the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal has erred in any way in law. In our judgment this appeal was doomed to failure and it fails.

We have considered whether or not an order for costs should be made against Mr Nathan. I have been persuaded by my colleagues that I should not make that order.