Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions >> Martin v Translink (NIR) [2009] NIFET 141_08FET (09 March 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIFET/2009/141_08FET.html
Cite as: [2009] NIFET 141_08FET, [2009] NIFET 141_8FET
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
CASE REF: 141/08 FET
CLAIMANT: William Martin
RESPONDENT: Translink (NIR)
DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the Tribunal on a pre-hearing review is that:-
the Tribunal declines to strike-out the claimant’s claim for failure to actively pursue the said claim;
the Tribunal makes no Order for Costs.
Additionally, the Tribunal has given the case-management directions set out below to progress this matter to hearing.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr D Buchanan
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person.
The respondent company was represented by Mr P Ferrity, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Macauley & Ritchie, Solicitors.
This matter was listed for a Case Management Discussion on 29 January 2009. Notice of Hearing was sent to the claimant personally by letter of 18 December 2008. The solicitor previously acting for him had come off record on 27 November 2008.
|
2. |
(i) |
The claimant did not attend the Case Management Discussion on 29 January 2009. The matter was therefore listed for a pre-hearing review on 27 February 2009 to consider the respondent’s application that the claim should be struck-out on the ground that it had not been actively pursued. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
A Record of Proceedings, with a covering letter, was sent to the claimant on 30 January 2009. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(iii) |
A Notice of Hearing giving the time, date and place of the pre-hearing review was sent to the claimant on 6 February 2009. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(iv) |
All correspondence and Notices referred to above, together with other, earlier, correspondence on the file were sent to the claimant at the address at which he has continually resided throughout the course of these proceedings. |
3. On 18 February 2009, the Office of the Tribunals received a telephone call from the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) which was acting with the authority of the claimant. On his behalf it was stated that he had received the Notice of Hearing dated 6 February 2009, but that he had not received the earlier correspondence of 18 December 2008 (Notice of the Case Management Discussion), and the Record of Proceedings of the Case Management Discussion (held in his absence) dated 30 January 2009.
|
4. |
(i) |
The claimant attended the pre-hearing review. He gave sworn evidence confirming what had previously been stated on his behalf, as set out at Paragraph 3 above. He indicated that it was his intention to pursue his claim. This evidence was not contradicted, and while it seems strange that some correspondence which had been properly addressed to him did not reach him while other such correspondence did, the Tribunal accepts his evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
It therefore does not accede to the respondent’s application to strike-out his claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
5. |
(i) |
The claimant had also received correspondence from the respondent’s solicitors dated 18 February 2009. This included a Notice for Additional Information. The claimant accepts that he received this.
It was contended that had he contacted the respondent’s solicitors at this stage, and informed them that he was continuing with the claim, the pre-hearing review could have been avoided.
On this basis the respondent’s counsel made an application for costs against the claimant.
However, I take into account that the claimant did ask the CAB to ring the Office of the Tribunals on his behalf, and that he is an unrepresented party. In these circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate to make an Order for Costs. |
With the agreement of the parties I now give the following case-management directions:-
(i) The agreed issues for determination by the Tribunal as follows:-
(a) Legal issues
Was the claimant less favourably treated?
Was he subject to a detriment?
Was it because of his religion or political belief?
Was his dismissal on the ground of his religious and political beliefs?
Are those claims out of time?
Factual issues
What was the less favourable treatment?
How was this a detriment?
How did this relate to his religious belief/political opinion?
What were those beliefs?
|
|
(ii) |
(a) |
An Order for Additional Information is made against the claimant on the application of the respondent. This Order is to be complied with by 27 March 2009, and a copy is attached. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b) |
Orders for Discovery and Inspection are made against each party. These are also to be complied with by 27 March 2009, and copies are attached. |
|
|
(iii) |
The matter will be listed for hearing from 15 – 19 June 2009. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(iv) |
Each party will be responsible for provision of his or its own bundle and sufficient copies (ie three for members of the Tribunal, one for the opposing party, and one for the witness). These should be exchanged not later than 29 May 2009 |
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 27 February 2009, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
Notice
1. If any party fails and/or is unable to comply with any of the above Orders, any application arising out of such failure or inability to comply must be made promptly to the Tribunal and in accordance with the Fair Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2005.
2. Failure to comply with any of these Orders may result in a Costs Order or a Preparation Time Order or a Wasted Costs Order or an Order that the whole or part of the claim, or as the case may be, the response may be struck out and, where appropriate, the respondent may be debarred from responding to the claim altogether.
3. Under Article 84(9) and (10) of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement imposed under Rule 9(2)(d) of the Fair Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2005 to grant discovery and inspection of documents shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the standard scale - £5,000 at 3 September 2007, but subject to alteration from time to time; and if, without reasonable excuse, the failure continues after conviction, shall be liable on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding one tenth of Level 5 on standard scale – £500, but subject to alteration from time to time – for each day on which the failure continues.
4. A party may apply to the Tribunal to vary or revoke any of the above Orders in accordance with the Fair Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2005.