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 >> Hill v Turner & Anor t/a "DRL" (Application for Review) [2004] NIIT 789_03 (18 March 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/21.html
Cite as: [2004] NIIT 789_03, [2004] NIIT 789_3
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
- In exercise of the power conferred by Rule 11(1) of the Rules of Procedure ("the Rules") 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 in respect of proceedings heard before the tribunal on 16 September 2003, which decision was recorded in the register and issued to the parties on 3 February 2004. The grounds upon which and the reason why the tribunal proposed to review the decision were as follows:-
- The grounds upon which the tribunal proposed to review the decision were those stated in the following Rules:-
- The applicant's representative at hearing of the review matter raised no objection to the tribunal of its own motion reviewing the decision, nor to the tribunal's determination of the review by revoking its decision and ordering that the matter should be relisted before a differently-constituted tribunal.
- Taking the foregoing matters into consideration, the tribunal now determines, upon the foregoing grounds as set out the said Rules of Procedure referred to above, to revoke its decision in the matter. The tribunal therefore Orders, upon review, that the tribunal's decision in this matter shall be revoked and that the matter shall be relisted to be heard before a differently constituted tribunal.
CASE REF: 789/03
APPLICANT: Victoria Hill
RESPONDENT: Joe Turner and Lee Monroe t/a "DRL"
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the review shall be granted and the tribunal Orders that the tribunal's decision in this matter shall be revoked and that the matter shall be relisted to be heard before a differently constituted tribunal.
Appearances:
The applicant was represented by Ms Sally Greene.
The respondent did not appear and was not represented.
REASONS
(a) The respondent Mr Turner was not initially served with a Notice of Hearing in the matter. The applicant's representative had informed the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal ("OITFET") by letter dated 1 September 2003 as to Mr Turner's suggested whereabouts. OITFET had then directed the Notice of Hearing to Mr Turner. However, that was not done until 4 September 2003 in respect of the hearing that was scheduled to take place on 16 September 2003. Thus the period of notice required under Rule 5(2) of the Rules, being not less than 14 days before the date fixed for hearing, was not given. Furthermore there was no evidence that the applicant's originating application in the matter was properly served upon Mr Turner as would be required by Rule 2(a) of the Rules, nor that the Notice required to be served under Rule 2(c) was properly served.
(b) The tribunal was requested at hearing to determine the correct respondent and, in consequence of evidence before the tribunal, determined that the proper respondent was Joe Turner and Lee Monroe who traded as "DRL". The second-named party, Lee Monroe, was not served with proceedings, nor with Notice of Hearing, nor was he put on notice that, in consequence of the tribunal's determination of the proper respondent, he might be joined as a party to the proceedings, and as such was not afforded an opportunity to raise objection or make submission in regard thereto.
1. Rule 11(1)(b) of the Rules, that a party did not receive notice of the proceedings leading to the decision; and
2. Rule 11(1)(c) of the Rules, that a decision was made in the absence of a party; and
3. Rule 11(1)(e) of the Rules, that the interests of justice required such a review.
Chairman:
Date: