Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 


O'Reilly v Taylor (t/a Niagara Hot Food Bar) (Application for Review) [2002] NIIT 3448_01 (24 June 2002)

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 3448/01

APPLICANT: Maureen O'Reilly

RESPONDENT: Sean Taylor

T/a Niagara Hot Food Bar

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the review shall be granted in the interests of justice, and the tribunal Orders that the proceedings in the matter shall be reinstated and shall continue before the tribunal as presently constituted.

Appearances:

The applicant was represented by Mr E O'Neill.

The respondent was represented by Mr M Dunn, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Donaldson McConnell & Co, Solicitors.

REVIEW

1. In exercise of the power conferred by Rule 11(1) of the Rules of Procedure set out in the First Schedule to the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996, the tribunal of its own motion proposed to review the decision of the tribunal in this matter that the tribunal ought properly, of its own motion, to disbar itself and to order the abandonment of the proceedings in the matter, which proceedings were heard before the tribunal on the 12^th and the 14^th March 2002. The grounds upon which the tribunal proposed to review the decision were those stated in Rule 11(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure set out in the First Schedule to the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996: that the interests of justice required such a review.
2. The background to the matter was that at the hearing of the matter on the 14^th March 2002, as a consequence of a remark made to the tribunal by the representative appearing on behalf of the applicant in the matter, the tribunal took the view that the integrity of the tribunal was being impugned by the representative in question and, as a consequence, the tribunal felt that it was not appropriate for the tribunal to continue with the hearing of the matter. The tribunal accordingly announced to the parties present that day that it was unable to continue with the hearing and ordered the proceedings to be abandoned.
3. The Office of Tribunals subsequently received written correspondence from the respective representatives of the applicant and of the respondent. In particular, the Office of Tribunals received a letter dated 18^th March 2002 from the applicant's representative, Mr O'Neill, stating, inter alia, that the representative, as the said letter puts it: "... made no allegations or claims on fairness..." (regarding the tribunal) and refuting the suggestion that the representative made: "... allegation in relation to the Tribunal to fairly determine the issues...".
4. The tribunal particularly notes the timely judgement of the English Court of Appeal in Bennett v London Borough of Southwark [2002] IRLR 407 which case, whilst not identical upon the facts, has some similarities in terms of the material issues. In that case the English Court of Appeal held that a tribunal was wrong to abandon proceedings where the tribunal was of the opinion that the tribunal's integrity was being impugned by a lay representative. The Court of Appeal in that judgement has made further helpful observations which have been of much assistance to this tribunal.
5. Taking the foregoing matters into consideration, and, further, taking into account the respective submissions of the parties' representatives at the review hearing, the tribunal now determines, upon the grounds set out in Rule 11(1)(e) of the said Rules of Procedure referred to above, in the interests of justice to revoke its decision not to continue with the hearing and to order the proceedings to be abandoned.
6. The tribunal therefore Orders, upon review, that the proceedings in the matter shall be reinstated and shall continue before the tribunal as presently constituted.

____________________________________

Date and place of hearing: 24 June 2002