tel: 0845 600 4996 or view our contact details
News Feed
A tribunal's refusal to adjourn the hearing of a Muslim claimant's unfair dismissal claim during Ramadan did not, on the facts, mean that the hearing was an unfair trial contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Mr Khan, who is a Muslim, lost claims for equal pay and unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal in Reading in September 2008.
He appealed to the EAT on the basis that he had not had a fair trial. His complaint was that the tribunal had refused a request he had made on the 3rd day of the hearing to adjourn to allow him to observe Ramadan and had then gone on to dismiss his claims in his absence. He claimed that the tribunal had made an error of law in that it had deprived him of the right to a fair trial contrary to art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
He has lost his appeal.
The EAT noted the factual background in some detail. This included the fact that the employer discovered that Mr Khan had been accessing pornographic and other inappropriate internet sites during working hours; that claims of discrimination he had made on grounds of age and religion had been struck out because of his failure to provide information required by the tribunal; that hearings had been postponed on medical grounds although there was no diagnosis of any medical treatment; that a request for an adjournment on grounds that he was not ready had been turned down; that the tribunal had already agreed Mr Khan's request for "specific break times each day for the purposes of prayer" during Ramadan; that the hearing date had been fixed on 29th May, meaning that Mr Khan had had adequate time to identify an overlap with Ramadan well before the hearing started in September; and that although Mr Khan had left the tribunal on the 3rd day of the hearing, the employment judge had considered his 122 page witness statement in detail.
The EAT was satisfied that the original tribunal had given "most anxious consideration" to the application for an adjournment. It found no error in the Tribunal’s approach or reasoning which would permit interference with a discretionary decision, arrived at after carefully balancing all the relevant factors. In particular it was relevant that Mr Khan had failed "to take even the most basic steps to avoid a hearing being fixed at a time which coincided with Ramadan".
He appealed to the EAT on the basis that he had not had a fair trial. His complaint was that the tribunal had refused a request he had made on the 3rd day of the hearing to adjourn to allow him to observe Ramadan and had then gone on to dismiss his claims in his absence. He claimed that the tribunal had made an error of law in that it had deprived him of the right to a fair trial contrary to art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
He has lost his appeal.
The EAT noted the factual background in some detail. This included the fact that the employer discovered that Mr Khan had been accessing pornographic and other inappropriate internet sites during working hours; that claims of discrimination he had made on grounds of age and religion had been struck out because of his failure to provide information required by the tribunal; that hearings had been postponed on medical grounds although there was no diagnosis of any medical treatment; that a request for an adjournment on grounds that he was not ready had been turned down; that the tribunal had already agreed Mr Khan's request for "specific break times each day for the purposes of prayer" during Ramadan; that the hearing date had been fixed on 29th May, meaning that Mr Khan had had adequate time to identify an overlap with Ramadan well before the hearing started in September; and that although Mr Khan had left the tribunal on the 3rd day of the hearing, the employment judge had considered his 122 page witness statement in detail.
The EAT was satisfied that the original tribunal had given "most anxious consideration" to the application for an adjournment. It found no error in the Tribunal’s approach or reasoning which would permit interference with a discretionary decision, arrived at after carefully balancing all the relevant factors. In particular it was relevant that Mr Khan had failed "to take even the most basic steps to avoid a hearing being fixed at a time which coincided with Ramadan".
