Claimant is usually entitled to adjournment to get fair trial

Case 4: The facts

Mr Hibbert, brought an unfair dismissal claim against Apple Europe. It had been adjourned five times for reasons connected to one or other of the parties. On the morning of the re-scheduled hearing, Hibbert phoned to say that he was at a hospital with his sick child. He did not request an adjournment but he later explained that this was because he assumed the case would not go ahead without him. It did go ahead without him and the result was unsuccessful. He requested a review of the decision to hear the case without him. The request was refused, so he appealed.

The ruling

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed his appeal, and returned the case to the tribunal for a re-hearing. It spelled out the law on adjournments: a party whose presence is needed for a fair trial of the case and who cannot attend through no fault of his own will usually be given an adjournment, however inconvenient. This is required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to a fair trial. However, he must satisfy the tribunal that the inability to attend is genuine and that an adjournment is necessary for the case to be tried fairly.

Commentary

For another recent case on requesting an adjournment, see O’Cathail v Transport for London UKEAT/0247/11 (Workplace Report, February 2012.)

Hibbert v Apple Europe Limited UKEAT/0134/11/DM