Tribunal was entitled to refuse hearing postponement despite medical evidence
A Tribunal's refusal to postpone a hearing partway through, highlights the fact-specific nature of balancing fairness for all parties.
Background
In the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision of Kaler v Insights ESC Ltd, the claimant was dismissed from her position as an Assistant Vice Principal at a special school, for sending emails deemed abusive and harassing. She argued that her conduct arose in consequence of her disability, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). She brought claims under the Equality Act 2010, including a claim for discrimination arising from disability.
The hearing was listed for five days and conducted remotely. The claimant represented herself and gave evidence during the first three days. Over the intervening weekend, she applied to postpone the remainder of the hearing, stating she was too unwell to continue. The Tribunal initially refused this request, but adjourned for a day after an ambulance was called due to the claimant experiencing a panic attack. The Tribunal advised her to provide detailed medical evidence if she renewed her application.
When the hearing resumed the next day, the Tribunal considered the claimant’s further application and an ambulance report but refused to postpone again. It cited the absence of adequate medical evidence and concerns that similar issues would arise at a later date. The hearing proceeded in the claimant’s absence, and her case was ultimately dismissed.
The claimant later submitted a GP letter confirming she had suffered a panic attack and needed the remainder of the month to recover. However, the Tribunal concluded this evidence did not alter its decision, as it did not provide confidence that a resumed hearing would avoid similar disruptions.
The EAT decision
The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision, reiterating that postponement applications are highly fact-specific and require a careful balancing of fairness to both parties.
The Tribunal had acted within its discretion by requiring timely and specific medical evidence to justify postponing the hearing. It also concluded that the evidence provided – including the ambulance report and later GP letter – lacked sufficient detail to justify an adjournment.
The EAT noted that Tribunals are not bound to accept medical opinions without question, particularly where prognosis or recovery remains uncertain. It also found that the Tribunal was entitled to consider the potential for similar disruptions in any resumed hearing, given the history of the case and the impact of delays on the respondent.
The EAT further rejected the claimant’s appeal against the dismissal of her substantive case. It upheld the Tribunal’s findings that her conduct, while serious, did not arise in consequence of her ASD. Even if it had, dismissal was a justified and proportionate response in light of the circumstances.
Learning points for employers
Applications for postponements on medical grounds require timely, detailed evidence explaining fitness to attend, diagnosis, and prognosis. Tribunals will carefully weigh the fairness to all parties, including the need to avoid undue delay and prejudice to respondents, particularly in long-running cases. Employers opposing a postponement should be prepared to demonstrate how further delays could prejudice their case or impact witnesses.
This case highlights the importance of clear and professional communication when managing employee conduct, particularly where disability or health issues may be involved. Employers should ensure that all decision-making processes are documented and that any disciplinary action is proportionate and objectively justified.