Rowland v Rowe [1994] UKEAT 602_94_3006

EAT
Rowland v Rowe
[1994] UKEAT 602_94_3006 · 1994-06-30

JUDGE LEVY QC :

On 20 December 1993 Mr S D Rowland submitted an originating application to an Industrial Tribunal claiming unfair dismissal. Prior to 14 June 1994, after the Respondent to that originating application, Mr Rowe, had put in an appearance, a date for the hearing was fixed for Monday 4 July 1994. On 14 June 1994 the Regional Secretary of the Offices of Industrial Tribunals wrote to the applicant in these terms:
"Your letter (undated), which was received at this office on 16 May 1994, applying for a postponement of the hearing of the above case, has been referred to a chairman of the tribunals (Mr Ash). He as (sic) replied as follows:-

"Postponement refused because

1. Date was agreed.2. No adequate reason given."The hearing arranged for Monday 4 July 1994 at Norwich will therefore proceed as previously notified.

Our exchange of correspondence has been copied as indicated below."

and copies were sent to the Respondent to the application and to the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service.From that refusal by letter received from the Employment Appeal Tribunal by facsimile on 28 June, Mr Rowland appeals. His letter reads:
"Enclosed I am sending a copy of the refusal sent to myself after I wrote previous letters stating the dates neither I or my father-in-law Mr R Mitchem, who is helping me present my case that were unsuitable.
I was due for a hearing on Monday 4th July 1994 at Norwich, but I shall be away until 9th July. The hearing was for unfair dismissal against Mr Barry Rowe...I wish to appeal against the chairman's decision, and I hope this letter will be the last I am having once again to send another date for the Tribunal hearing would be much appreciated."Mr Rowland does not contest the statement by Mr Marsh in his letter that the date was agreed and certainly we have seen no reason, yet alone an adequate reason, for the application for adjournment. Mr Rowland simply says he will be away until 9th July. He does not say when he was going away or where he was going to or give any of the sort of reasons which might justify an adjournment. We have also received a letter from the Respondent to the application dated 29 June saying that another change of the date would give him difficulties.In the circumstances we do not think there has been any wrong exercise of his discretion by the writer of the letter refusing to change the date and accordingly it would not be right for us to interfere with the decision he has reached. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal.