Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployee relationsEmployment lawEmployment tribunals

Ahari v University of Glasgow HCI (Scotland) Ltd

by Personnel Today 25 Oct 2005
by Personnel Today 25 Oct 2005

Ill-timed postponement request

Ahari v University of Glasgow HCI (Scotland) Ltd, EAT website 3 October 2005

Facts

Ahari worked at the hospital and was seconded to HCI, a company engaged in running hospital facilities. Following alleged harassment on the grounds of race, Ahari brought a claim of race discrimination.

His claim progressed slowly, partly due to his postponement requests. Finally, the day before the hearing, he sent a fax requesting the hearing be postponed due to his ill health. The tribunal responded with a fax, requesting a GP’s certificate. When he failed to contact them or attend, the tribunal refused his application for a postponement and dismissed his claim.

Ahari requested a review, saying his illness had prevented him attending, but that he had contacted his GP for written confirmation of his illness at the first available opportunity, which was four days later. The GP’s letter confirmed that his condition had been debilitating prior to the hearing date, but that he quickly recovered.

Decision

The tribunal considered the five relevant grounds under the 2004 tribunal rules. In its view, administrative error, notification to the parties, absence of a party or introduction of new evidence were not grounds for review. As for the fifth – whether a review was required in the ‘interests of justice’ – the tribunal considered Ahari’s previous requests for postponements, the medical evidence and the cost and inconvenience caused to the employer. His request failed and he appealed.

Appeal

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal. While conceding the decision was harsh, it held that the length of time the proceedings had taken, the serious allegations hanging over the parties and the case history were highly relevant.

Comment

The extension of tribunal powers, in terms of cost penalties and the ability to strike out cases, have been slow to have an impact. But recent decisions suggest tribunals are finally getting tough. If parties want to postpone a hearing, they should support their application with strong evidence, or risk facing severe costs or having their case struck out.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Warnings that 24-hour opening may lead to hearing problems for bar staff
next post
Survey proves fitter employees lead to healthier balance sheets

You may also like

Company director wins £15k after being told to...

4 Jul 2025

How can HR prepare for changes to the...

3 Jul 2025

Government publishes ‘roadmap’ for Employment Rights Bill

2 Jul 2025

Employers’ duty of care: keeping workers safe in...

27 Jun 2025

When will the Employment Rights Bill become law?

26 Jun 2025

HR manager with ‘messy’ work loses discrimination case

25 Jun 2025

Fear of confrontation means disputes escalate – research

25 Jun 2025

Man who used company credit card for himself...

23 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

AI company did not racially discriminate against Chinese...

20 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+