Applications to postpone or adjourn a hearing under the ET Rules 2024, including on medical grounds. Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth; Kaler v Insights ESC Ltd.
Procedure; postponement on medical grounds; the Court of Appeal held that a litigant whose presence is needed for a fair trial but who is unable to attend through no fault of his own will usually be granted an adjournment. Article 6 ECHR demands that tribunals approach medical adjournment applications with great care. The Tribunal's refusal of an adjournment was set aside where it drew an unjustified inference that a claimant had 'chosen' not to attend when he had a doctor's advice not to do so.
Tribunal procedure; postponement; ill health. On an application to postpone — even one supported by unchallenged medical evidence — the tribunal must assess fairness to both sides and the public interest in the efficient conduct of litigation as a whole: fairness to the absent party is not decisive, and refusal can be lawful notwithstanding genuine inability to attend. Appellate interference with such case-management decisions is limited to error-of-principle grounds; the EAT may not simply re-ask whether the refusal was unfair.
Procedure; medical evidence; the EAT underscored that Tribunals must engage with medical evidence 'with care' (Para 68). While postponement/expedition applications are highly fact-specific, specific medical evidence remains crucial for ensuring Article 6 rights and making reasonable adjustments to the hearing process.
Procedure; postponements; refusal to adjourn a preliminary hearing on disability status was not an error of law where the remaining issues could fairly be determined on the existing medical evidence and the claimant's own testimony. Postponement is a case management discretion and appellate interference is limited.