Crown Court for Northern Ireland Decisions

(a) to produce to the inspector or inspectors all relevant documents which are in their possession;

(b) to attend before the inspector or inspectors when required to do so; and

(c) otherwise to give the inspector or inspectors all assistance in connection with the investigation reasonably able to give. (article 12B (3)).

(a) NIHF had been on the list of employers' associations maintained by the appellant in accordance with the provisions of article 5(1) of the Order until 30 June 2004. The removal of its name from that list followed written requests from NIHF to the appellant dated 29 April and 21 June 2004.

(b) One of the two witnesses called at the hearing on behalf of the appellant, Kay Linnell, had been appointed as an Inspector by him.

(c) Each of the respondents had been required in writing by Kay Linnell to attend before her or to produce documents to her or both.

(d) Each of the respondents, through their solicitors, had declined to attend or to produce any documents.

(e) Notwithstanding the memorandum and articles of association of NIHF [which until 21 April 2004 had included as one of the purposes of the company "to regulate the relations between the members and members and between members and their employees"] there was no evidence that NIHF had ever regulated relations between its members and workers or trade unions.

(f) Despite having been informed in writing by NIHF in a letter dated 18 June 2004 that it did not regulate any such relations, Mr Dermot Rafferty, a witness called on behalf of the appellant, conceded that he had not sought from NIHF any documentation, e.g. minutes of meetings which would confirm this statement or otherwise.

(g) Ms Linnell, who had examined the accounting records that NIHF had provided to the appellant in previous years, stated that she could not produce any evidence that NIHF had ever been an employers' association within the meaning of article 4 (1) (a) of the Order.

(h) In relation to the respondent Felix Mooney, Ms. Linnell stated that there was no evidence to show that he was an auditor, or that he had signed any NIHF accounts, or that he was on the committee or that he had been a signatory to the formation of the company. She could not provide any basis for her contention that Mr Mooney appeared to her to be a person in possession of information relating to a matter which she considered to be relevant to her investigation.

(i) The appellant in a letter dated 13 January 2005 accepted that NIHF, with effect from 21 April 2004, was no longer subject to the statutory obligations applicable to employers' associations. This acceptance was based solely on the fact that on 21 April 2004 NIHF had amended its memorandum and articles of association.

(a) That NIHF had been, until 21 April 2004, on the list of employers' associations.

(b) That until 21 April 2004 the memorandum and articles of association of NIHF contained a power similar to the definition of an employers' association as specified in the Order.

(c) That NIHF had made annual returns to the appellant until 2004.

(d) That, with the exception of the respondent Felix Mooney, each of the respondents fell into the categories of persons specified in article 12B (3) and (4) of the Order.

(e) That, despite his findings at (a) (b) and (c) above, NIHF had never been an employers' association within the meaning of the Order.

(f) That it followed that none of the respondents was obliged to attend before the inspector or to produce any documentation to the inspector.

(g) That the appellant had failed to provide an explanation to the respondents for the appointment of the inspector.

(h) That following correspondence from the inspector each of the respondents had sought and obtained legal advice and that their refusal to attend before the inspector or to produce documentation did not constitute "wilful neglect" within the meaning of the Order.

1. Was I correct in law in holding that NIHF had not at any time been an employers' association within the meaning of article 4 (1) (a) of the Order?

2. Was I correct in law in holding that the respondents had no case to answer even though I had [made the findings set out at paragraph [8] (a) (b) and (c) above]?

3. Was I correct in law in holding that none of the respondents had wilfully neglected to attend before the inspector or to produce documentation to her?

"The fact that the name of an organisation is included in the list of …employers' associations maintained under this article shall be evidence that the organisation is …an employers' association…"

"(3) Where an inspector is, or inspectors are, appointed under this Article it is the duty of all persons who are or have been officials or agents of the trade union or employers' association—

(a) to produce to the inspector or inspectors all relevant documents which are in their possession,

(b) to attend before the inspector or inspectors when required to do so, and

(c) otherwise to give the inspector or inspectors all assistance in connection with the investigation which they are reasonably able to give."

"(4) Where any person (whether or not within paragraph (3)) appears to the inspector or inspectors to be in possession of information relating to a matter which he considers, or they consider, to be relevant to the investigation, the inspector or inspectors may require him—

(a) to produce to the inspector or inspectors any relevant documents relating to that matter,

(b) to attend before the inspector or inspectors, and

(c) otherwise to give the inspector or inspectors all assistance in connection with the investigation which he is reasonably able to give;

and it is the duty of the person to comply with the requirement."

"13. — (1) If a trade union or an employers' association refuses or wilfully neglects to perform a duty imposed on it by or under any of the provisions of Articles 10 to 12 or Schedule 1 the trade union or employers' association shall be guilty of an offence."

"(5) If a person contravenes any duty, or requirement imposed, under Article 12A or 12B he commits an offence."

"154. - (1) No objection shall be allowed in any proceedings before a magistrates' court to any complaint, summons, warrant, process, notice of application or appeal or other document for any alleged defect in substance or in form or for variation between any complaint, summons, warrant, process notice or other document and the evidence adduced on the part of the complainant, plaintiff, applicant or appellant at the hearing, unless the defect or variance appears to have misled the other party to the proceeding."

"155. A magistrates' court may during any proceeding upon such terms as it thinks fit, make any amendment in any complaint, summons, warrant, process, notice of application or appeal or other document which is necessary for the purpose of raising the real questions at issue and arriving at a just decision."