Should the employment tribunal have proceeded to hear a claim in the Claimant's absence when he applied for a second adjournment on the basis of ill-health?  No, said the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") in O'Cathail v Transport for London.

The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant was unwell, but refused the adjournment, for reasons including the period of time since the alleged events.  The decision was overturned.  The EAT will only examine adjournment decisions in very limited circumstances.  Where the fairness of the proceedings as a whole is endangered, it will consider whether the decision was a fair solution.

Per Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth [2002] IRLR 721, where refusing an adjournment is likely to lead to dismissal of the claim, a tribunal must be careful not to cause injustice.  Where his presence is needed for a fair hearing, but he is blamelessly unable to attend, the tribunal should commonly grant an adjournment.  The tribunal should be satisfied that the inability is genuine and the onus is on the applicant to prove the necessity of the adjournment.