Harley v. Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis

Factual and Procedural Background

The case involves an interlocutory appeal concerning whether the hearing scheduled for 19 September should be postponed. The Appellant made two requests to postpone the hearing. The first request, made in July, was rejected by the Employment Tribunal on the basis that simply stating an inability to attend on the rescheduled date was insufficient. Subsequently, a more detailed request was made, explaining that the Appellant suffered from an eating disorder worsened by stress, and that her partner, a material witness who had attended and given evidence in her place, had a prior long-standing engagement fixed by his employer on the hearing date. The Appellant’s letter also argued that the Tribunal had previously granted a postponement to the Respondent, the Metropolitan Police, suggesting that fairness required a similar accommodation. The Employment Tribunal, after considering the request, refused the postponement citing three reasons: a general presumption against delay, the possibility of obtaining a witness order for the partner, and a procedural direction. The Appellant did not attend or pursue the appeal in person, but the court proceeded to determine the matter based on written submissions and documents.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Tribunal Chairman had the power to decline the request for a postponement of the hearing.
2. Whether the Tribunal exercised that power on a proper legal basis, including whether there was any misdirection in law or whether the decision was so perverse as to be unsustainable.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first acknowledged that there was no dispute regarding the Tribunal Chairman’s authority to refuse the postponement request. The court clarified that its role was limited to reviewing the Tribunal’s decision rather than re-hearing the matter. The court examined whether the Tribunal had misdirected itself legally or made a perverse decision. Although the court found the decision harsh, it concluded that the Chairman was entitled to consider the presumption against delay and the suggestion that the Appellant could seek a witness order to mitigate the inconvenience caused by the partner’s unavailability. The court interpreted the Tribunal’s letter as inviting the Appellant to take procedural steps to ensure a fair hearing. Ultimately, the court determined that the discretion was exercised properly and that the decision, while severe, was not legally unsound or perverse.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the interlocutory appeal, ordering that the hearing proceed on the originally scheduled date. The direct effect is that the hearing will not be postponed. The opinion does not establish any new precedent or broader legal principle beyond the immediate procedural determination.