Case 2200541/2022 · Employment Tribunal
AB v The General Council of the Bar of England and Wales — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200541/2022
- Decision date
- 18 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
- Panel members
- Ms J Holgate, Mr M Ferry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
AB
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing and, on the first morning, an adjournment was requested on her behalf by a third party saying that she had been admitted to A&E. The tribunal adjourned to obtain further information, then required the claimant to explain the medical basis for the request and to provide supporting medical evidence, including a discharge summary and a medical statement about fitness to attend and prognosis.
The claimant later provided a discharge summary from University Hospitals Sussex dated 17 April 2023 and a GP letter dated 18 April 2023. The tribunal also considered Professor Dalgleish’s January 2023 report, which referred to PTSD and the effect of the proceedings on the claimant’s mental health. It accepted that the claimant had established she was unfit to attend the hearing that week, but it was not satisfied that there was a reasonable likelihood of her being fit to take an active part in a final hearing within a timeframe that would be fair to both parties. The tribunal gave little weight to the GP’s open-ended prognosis of recovery over several months, because the treatment plan and expected timescale were not specific enough, and it regarded the ongoing proceedings as a continuing trigger for the claimant’s PTSD.
The tribunal also took account of the respondent witness Wilf White’s evidence about the impact of the proceedings on his health, including increased chest pain and concerns about his cardiac condition if the hearing were adjourned for an open-ended or lengthy period. Balancing the claimant’s position, the respondent’s prejudice, and the public interest in the prompt and efficient administration of justice, the tribunal refused the adjournment application and dismissed the claim under rule 47. It noted that, if the matter were heard in the claimant’s absence, the burden would remain on her to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and it found no other basis to adjourn the case after refusing the application on medical grounds.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The claim was dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend and the tribunal refused an adjournment. The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of the discrimination allegations; the sex discrimination classification follows the case listing category and the extracted record. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- rule 30A(2)
- rule 30A(4)
- rule 47
- Sokolik v Kobre & Kim (UK) LLP
- Teinaz v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Andrea v The Lord Chancellor’s Department
- Riley v The Crown Prosecution Service
- Phelan v Richardson Rogers Ltd and anor
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.