||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 173 (Apr)
||Employment Appeal Tribunal
Commissioner Howell QC, Dr D Grieves and Mr W Morris
||Jude Shepherd (instructed by Russell Jones & Walker) for the employee.
||John Cavanagh (instructed by Metropolitan Police Service Solicitor's Department) for the employer.
||22 March 2002
Employment - Practice - Stay of proceedings - Employee issuing proceedings against employer on grounds of sexual harassment and victimisation - Whether employer vicariously liable for proceedings brought by serving police officer - Employer seeking indefinite stay of proceedings pending outcome of appeal in similar proceedings - Tribunal refusing adjournment - Whether tribunal in error.
Employment tribunals had a wide discretion to grant or refuse an adjournment. They were and had to remain in control of their own lists and it would rarely be justified for a party denied an adjournment to appeal to the EAT. In the instant case, it had been reasonable for the tribunal to have reached the decision that it had in refusing to allow the employer's application for an indefinite stay of the proceedings against him.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary