FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

CASE REF:	00544/00FET
03249/00

APPLICANT:	Whyed Gill

RESPONDENTS:	Ken Withington &
			East Antrim Institute of Further & Higher Education

DECISION
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the complaints are dismissed.

Appearances:
Mr Gill did not appear, was not represented and did not submit written representations for consideration.
Mr Peter O’Rawe of the Education & Library Board’s Legal Service appeared for the respondents.

1.	The applicant complained on 7 December 2000 to the Fair Employment Tribunal that he was a victim of racial, religious and political discrimination when he was not shortlisted for the post of Training Manager with the second respondent.  The complaint was treated as including a complaint of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of race to an industrial tribunal.  On 25 April 2001 the Vice President of the Tribunals directed that matters which would otherwise fall to an industrial tribunal for determination shall be heard and determined together by the Fair Employment Tribunal.

2.	On 24 July 2001 the respondents’ representative sought further particulars from the applicant within 14 days of the basis of his claims of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of religion, political opinion and race and of various other matters.  This notice was sent to the applicant at the address given by him for service.  There was no response from the applicant.

3.	On 14 August 2001, the respondents’ representative sought an Order for Particulars against the applicant from the Tribunal.  On 3 September 2001 a Chairman granted such an Order and allowed 14 days for compliance.  On 25 September 2001 the respondents’ representative advised that the applicant had not complied with the Order and sought to have the complaints struck out.

4.	This letter of 26 September 2001 was copied to the applicant on 2 October 2001.  At the same time the applicant was informed that –

	(a)	the application to strike out would be listed for hearing;

	(b)	at that hearing he would have an opportunity to show cause as to why the complaint should not be struck out;

	(c)	a relevant consideration at the hearing would be whether or not the Orders had by then been complied with by the applicant; and

	(d)	a party in default of an Order could be held to have conducted the proceedings unreasonably and could have costs awarded against him.

	On 24 October 2001 the applicant was informed of the date, time and place of this hearing.

5.	The applicant did not appear at this hearing.  He is not a stranger to tribunal proceedings and has required this process to be employed before by his lack of response to Tribunal orders.  He has made no response to the Tribunal’s order – after 4 months – to either the respondents or the Tribunal.  In these circumstances, these applications are now dismissed.

6.	It is self evident that the conduct of tribunal proceedings in this manner by a party is quite unreasonable.  It requires other parties to prepare a case lest other parties – the applicant in this case – decide to proceed.  Costs orders are not always an effective way of ensuring that all applicants prosecute or withdraw their complaints or explain their intentions to other parties.  It may well be that, in certain circumstances, financial deposits should be required to ensure that parties do not act unreasonably in the presentation or continuation of proceedings.  The respondents in these applications made no other application other than to strike out the complaints.

____________________________________
J E MAGUIRE
President

Date and place of hearing:	4 January 2002, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: 7 January 2002