FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
CASE REF:	00403/01FET
2759/01

CLAIMANT:	Albert John Titterington

RESPONDENT:	 Institute of Management

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW

Constitution of Tribunal

President:		Miss E McBride 

Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person.
The respondent was represented Mr B Mulqueen, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Tughans Solicitors.

1.	The first issue to be determined was whether the respondent’s response should be struck out for non-compliance with an Order for Discovery dated 21 November 2005.  That Order required the respondent to “make available to the claimant a record of the hard drive of the computer used by Julie Anne Chambers whilst in the employ of the respondent.  The dates of the record to be made available to the claimant to be the date upon which the shortlisting selection matrix for the post for which the claimant applied was first originated until 28th April 2001.”

2.	Mr Mulqueen accepted that the Order has still not been complied with.  He further conceded, and I was satisfied, that in so far as the hard drive contains relevant information, then without compliance, the claimant cannot receive a fair hearing.

3.	Having regard to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal decision in the case of In Re Darley I ordered an Unless Order to be served on the respondent giving it until 1 March 2006 to either comply with the Order for Disclosure dated 21st November 2005 or to make an application to the Tribunal for the time limit to be extended to apply to vary or set aside the Order for Disclosure dated 21st November 2005, or to indicate that it wished the Tribunal to consider issues of confidentiality.  I directed that the respondent should notify the claimant of any such application at the same time.  

	Mr Mulqueen and Mr Titterington indicated that they should be able to agree on the Expert to look at the computer by 15th February 2006.  

	In view of the postal strike, I made the above dates clear to the parties at the hearing.  

4.	The second issue for the Tribunal to determine was the claimant’s application to join Ms Chambers as a respondent to the proceedings.  Having considered the representations of Mr Titterington and Ms Chambers, I refused the claimant’s application to join Ms Chambers as a respondent because I was not satisfied that Ms Chambers had either knowingly aided or incited or directed, procured or induced the alleged discrimination.  However I made it clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that the respondent would be liable for any acts of discrimination carried out by Ms Chambers against the claimant during the course of her employment.

5.	The third issue for determination was the claimant’s request for Additional Information as set out at paragraphs 3 and 4 of his letter to the Secretary of the Tribunals dated 11 July 2005.  

6.	Mr Mulqueen indicated and Mr Titterington agreed that paragraph 4 was a matter of evidence.  The dispute related to the Additional Information sought at paragraph 3.  I was satisfied that was really being sought at paragraph 3 was not Additional Information but an Order for Disclosure of the assessment allegedly made jointly made by Ms Chambers and Mr Thompson and all records in relation thereto.  I therefore directed that an Order for Disclosure would be made against the respondent  in favour of the claimant to be complied with by 1 March 2006.  Again due to the postal strike I notified the parties that the Order would be made and the date for compliance.  I also made it clear that if no such information exists, the respondent must make that clear to the claimant in writing by 1st March 2006.

______________________________________
E McBride
President

Date: