Morton v Eastleigh Citizens’ Advice Bureau [2020]
Decision Number: EWCA Civ 638
Published on: 27/05/2020
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Jason Elliott BL Barrister & Lecturer of Law, Ulster University
Jason Elliott BL Barrister & Lecturer of Law, Ulster University
Jason elliott new
LinkedIn

Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University.  As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal.   At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Background

The claimant brought a disability discrimination claim against the respondent based upon her eating disorder, agoraphobia, depression and anxiety.  The respondent challenged this and the Employment Judge at the Tribunal directed a joint medical expert report.  Prior to the hearing, the claimant provided additional evidence and the employer conceded that she met the definition of being disabled.   The claimant still wished for the joint expert report to be required as the concession from the respondent was not in relation to all alleged disabilities.  A second Employment Judge refused this application.  Accordingly, the claimant requested a postponement to allow her to obtain her own report and that she needed additional times due to her mental health issues.  The adjournment was then refused by a third employment Judge. On the day of hearing another adjournment application was made and refused by a fourth Employment Judge.  The reason given was that a further medical report would not be of assistance to the court.

The claimant appealed the decision not to adjourn on the day of hearing which was dismissed by the EAT.  She further appealed to the Court of Appeal.  The question of law was whether there were ‘no exceptional circumstances’ as noted by the fourth Employment Judge in their refusal to order the adjournment.  The Court of Appeal looked at two issues; the first was about appeals against case management decisions.   This was based upon the claimant’s argument that the second Judge’s decision to refuse to allow her to have her own medical report was an error in law that should have been ignored on the day of hearing.   The Court of Appeal noted that there was no appeal made against the second order.  Indeed, the claimant could not have their cake and eat it as they had stated that the second Judge should not have interfered with the first Judge’s decision yet were stating that the fourth Judge should have interfered with the second Judge’s decision.   Underhill LJ outlined in his decision that it was unacceptable to make identical applications to separate Judges and that the fourth Judge should not be expected to in essence hear a de facto appeal relating to the other Judge’s interlocutory decisions.  Accordingly, this head of appeal was dismissed.

The second argument was that the claimant stated she did not have enough preparation time.  This was largely on the basis that the respondent’s bundle had arrived late, coupled with her mental health issues.  The Court of Appeal held that the decision to continue with the case by the Employment Judges was not perverse but had actually taken into account the grasp of the facts and issues that the claimant had as well as being able to supply some medical evidence. Accordingly, it was held that she had enough time to prepare and her appeal failed.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates how some of the most innocuous preliminary hearings can lead to some of the most substantive Court of Appeal hearings.   Decisions to adjourn can be necessary to ensure that there is a fair hearing but they must also be refused to ensure that the innocent party is not met with great expense or inconvenience.   In this situation, the court backed the decision of multiple Judges in looking at the context as well as the claimant’s understanding of her own case.  Parties must be aware that seeking an adjournment on the day of hearing, especially when another Judge has already refused it previously will not be favourably met.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/638.html

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 27/05/2020