The Appellant had been found liable for unfair dismissal of the Respondent. It appealed against the finding, and applied for a postponement of the Remedies Hearing until after the appeal was heard, mainly on the ground that counsel was not available for the scheduled Remedies Hearing. The ET, ignoring the ground cited by the Appellant, refused the application on the basis that the existence of the appeal was not a sufficient ground for postponing a Remedies Hearing and further delay was not in the interests of justice.

The EAT held that the ET had not given sufficient reasons for the parties or the EAT to see what it took into account when it decided not to allow an adjournment or postponement of the Remedies Hearing, or whether it exercised its discretion judicially.