British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Delaney v Botanic Inns Ltd [2002] NIIT 538_02 (12 August 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2002/538_02.html
Cite as: [2002] NIIT 538_02, [2002] NIIT 538_2
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
- These reasons are given in summary form.
- The title of the first named respondent was amended to that now shown to make clear that it was a limited company. The second and third named respondents were respectively a director and an employee of the respondent company. They were not properly parties to the proceedings, and were therefore dismissed from the proceedings.
- (i) This case was listed for hearing at 10.00 a.m. on 12 August 2002. Neither the
- The tribunal did not consider it appropriate to adjourn the hearing to a later date. It considered the contents of the originating application, which alleged constructive dismissal. The applicant therefore bore the burden of proof. Having considered the contents of the originating application, and heard submissions from the respondent's representative, the tribunal proceeded to dismiss the application.
- In the opinion of the tribunal the applicant, in conducting the proceedings, has acted frivolously and unreasonably. The tribunal therefore orders that the applicant pay to the respondent company the sum of £250 in respect of costs incurred by them.
CASE REF: 538/02
APPLICANT: Seamus Delaney
RESPONDENT: Botanic Inns Ltd
T/a Giraffe Restaurant
The unanimous decision of the industrial tribunal is that the application to the tribunal in respect of a complaint of unfair dismissal be dismissed. The tribunal further orders that the applicant pay to the respondent company the sum of £250 in respect of costs incurred by the latter.
Appearances:
Neither the applicant, nor the solicitor on record for him, appeared at the hearing.
The respondents were represented by Mr H Webb of Croner Consultants.
applicant, nor the solicitor on record for him, appeared at the hearing. No communication had been received from either indicating any reasons for non-attendance.
(ii) The tribunal was satisfied that notice of hearing had been sent to the applicant.
(iii) On Thursday 8 August 2002, the respondent's representative had faxed a bundle of documents to the applicant's solicitor, in advance of the hearing on 12 August 2002. This elicited no response, though it did of course have the effect of re-emphasising the imminent date of the hearing.
(iv) On the morning of the hearing, after the time fixed, the respondent's representative spoke to the applicant's solicitor's office. He received no indication that the solicitor would be attending the hearing or contacting the tribunal with any reasons for absence. The respondent's representative had brought four witnesses to the hearing.
____________________________________
Date and place of hearing: 12 August 2002, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: