The Claimant, who worked in one of the Respondent's takeaway restaurants, sought to recover unpaid wages in respect of a recent period of employment of less than two months and an earlier period of three months. There was some uncertainty as to whether the Respondent had employed the Claimant directly or through a limited company of which he was a director, since there was no written statement of terms and conditions of employment. The ET rejected the claim for the earlier period as being out of time, but made an award in respect of the recent period and increased it by four weeks' pay by virtue of section 38 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, taking into account the Respondent's utter failure to comply with any of the documentary requirements of employment legislation. The ET refused an application by the Respondent to adjourn the case so that he could produce further documents. The Respondent appealed against the ET's refusal to adjourn and its decision to increase the award.

The EAT held that the ET was entitled to decide not to adjourn the case and had given very clear reasons why it exercised its discretion in favour of not granting the adjournment. The EAT also concluded that there was no error of law in respect of the increased award.