Refusing an application to Adjourn

In Kaler v Insights ESC Ltd, [2024] EAT 195 – a case some 4 years in coming to court – it was held that the Employment Tribunal was entitled to refuse a litigant in person’s application for an adjournment even though she had produced medical evidence to support her application.

The Claimant suffered from panic attacks linked with her diagnosed autism. The  prospect of a tribunal hearing triggered her attacks.

While it could be said that it was unusual for the court to refuse her application for an adjournment, the rationale was totally understandable. The attacks that the Claimant was experiencing would not disappear if an adjournment were granted and would recur when the next date was set.

Balanced against this was the Respondent’s right to engage in a fair trial. Prolonged proceedings and repeated adjournments would militate against a fair trial.

The EAT considered the rules behind granting adjournments and the well-established position that a decision to refuse an adjournment can only be challenged on perversity grounds.

There must be a consideration of the balance of prejudice between the parties and consideration of whether granting or refusing an adjournment application could prejudice a fair trial.

Accordingly, it was held to be fair to refuse the application to adjourn and to press on with the full merits hearing.