Cook v Thorne House Autistic Community [1998] UKEAT 465_98_0104

EAT

Cook v Thorne House Autistic Community

[1998] UKEAT 465_98_0104 · 1998-04-01

MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT) : This is an appeal against an Industrial Tribunal's refusal to grant the applicant an adjournment. The proceedings are due to be heard on 11th May 1998 at 10 a.m., pursuant to a Notice of Hearing dated 3rd March 1998. It is that hearing date which the applicant in this case wishes to be vacated.

The background can be very shortly stated. Mrs Angela Cook has presented a complaint against Thorne House Autistic Community alleging disability discrimination. She is or was a residential social worker. She had a request for study leave turned down. Her complaint in paragraph 6 of the IT1 reads as follows:

"I believe that my request for study leave was a request for a reasonable adjustment under Section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I therefore wish to submit a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act in respect of my employer's failure to provide such an adjustment."

In their response to this application, the respondents said a number of things including in paragraph 3:

"No admissions are made as to the applicant's disability as alleged or at all."

The nature of the disability, in general terms, can be described as "dyslexia". It is clearly going to be of importance to the Industrial Tribunal, when considering this case, to be as fully informed as the parties can reasonably manage, as to the nature and symptoms of the complaint of dyslexia. That is because one of the issues in the case is going to be whether, given her condition, she is competent to be making a complaint under the disability legislation.

Mrs Cook's advisers having seen the IT3, instructed a doctor at the Dyslexia Institute to examine the applicant and prepare a report on her, and to give his expert medical opinion with a view to assisting the tribunal to determine whether the applicant comes within the definition of disability.

On the evening of 26th March 1998, the doctor concerned, through his secretary, informed the applicant's representatives that due to the doctor's pressure of work he would not be able to attend on the applicant, so as to interview her, and prepare his report until 16th June 1998.

Immediately thereafter, the applicant's advisers got in touch with the Industrial Tribunal and asked for the case to be postponed, so as to enable that report to be prepared.

The Chairman, by an order dated 30th March 1998, refused the request made.

The applicant contends that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal was essentially perverse.

We have to say that we agree with that submission. It is a matter of crucial importance in this case that the applicant should be given a reasonable opportunity to put forward the best medical opinion evidence which she is able to obtain in order to advance her complaint. This is a crucial question for the Industrial Tribunal at the hearing, and she is to be given a proper and fair opportunity to obtain such material.

Industrial Tribunals have an interest in making sure that cases are progressed quickly. They are dealing with matters which range from unfair dismissal through to discrimination, and it is, generally speaking, true that justice delayed is justice denied. However, under the jurisdiction given to them by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 , Industrial Tribunals will have to come to terms with the fact that there will be occasions in which the medical profession will be required to lend their assistance for the better understanding of the Industrial Tribunal. This is one such case.

Given the importance of having the case progressed quickly, but also given the importance of people having the opportunity to present their complaints in full, there will sometimes be a need for the tribunals to adjust their timescale so as to accommodate the reasonable requirements of the medical profession. That does not mean to say that every time a doctor finds it inconvenient to meet a date, a tribunal must automatically give way to his desires, but it does mean that where as here a doctor is simply unable to deal with a case in the timescale set by the Industrial Tribunal, it would be contrary to the interests of justice if the Industrial Tribunal were not to give full weight to his unavailability.

It seems to us that the effect of the tribunal's decision will be to deny Mrs Cook the justice which she is entitled to have on the determination of her complaint, and that there was no basis for any judicial decision to refuse her an adjournment, given the circumstances.

Therefore, we allow the appeal, and adjourn the proceedings from 11th May 1998, and leave it to the good sense of the Industrial Tribunal to re-fix a date which will fit in with the reasonable requirements of Dr Rack, who is the doctor concerned in this case. The appeal is allowed.