Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 2775/02

APPLICANT: Alan McLaughlin

RESPONDENTS: 1. University of Ulster

2. Department of Physical Resources

DECISION ON AN APPLICATION TO REVIEW A DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the tribunal does not extend time for an application to review a decision.

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT: The applicant appeared in person.

RESPONDENTS: Mr Oliver McCullough for the respondents.

1. The applicant had withdrawn his application by letter on 24 July 2003. The application was dismissed following its withdrawal on 10 September 2003 and this decision was sent to the parties. On 13 October 2003 the applicant wrote to the tribunals saying that he wished his application to be reinstated. He made reference to being hospitalised in July 2003 and discharged on 23 July 2003. He sent a further letter to the tribunal on 25 November 2003 saying that he was not aware of there being a time limit to apply for a review. He stated that he was very unwell for several weeks after his release from hospital and was not capable of very much activity - physically, mentally or emotionally.
2. As a result of this correspondence both parties were informed that a hearing would be held to consider -

(a) whether to extend time to present a review of the tribunal decision, and

(b) if the answer to (a) is yes, to consider the grounds for an application to review.

It was acknowledged by the applicant that the ground would be interests of justice.

3. The applicant presented two sickness certificates which were signed by his GP. One was for a period of 3 weeks starting on 16 June 2003 and the other was for 7 days from 7 July 2003. This was the totality of documentary proof of his illness as alleged in his letters. He stated that he was on heavy medication including anti-depressants and he was not able to function well during that period. He stated that his family and friends advised him to discontinue his tribunal proceedings and he did so by letter of 24 July 2003.
4. The tribunal noted that the applicant was able to return to work in the last week of July and had continued to work since then. When he went back to work he said that the problems he encountered before had continued. He was transferred to a different place of work and he has been continuing to attend work. He stated that he had no knowledge of time limits for reviews. The tribunal accepted evidence and by questions from the respondent, that the applicant was a member of a union, had approached a union and had also seen the Equality Commission and a solicitor in preparation for his case. We are satisfied that he was not acting totally on his own in presenting a claim to the tribunal. If the work situation had not improved when he went back in July 2003 there was nothing to prevent him presenting another claim to the tribunal but he chose not to do so at any stage up until this review hearing.
5. The tribunal is well aware that there has to be a finality of litigation. There is a 14 day period during which a party who is dissatisfied with the decision of a tribunal can make an application for a review of that decision and the grounds are set out in Rule 10(1) of the Industrial Tribunal Rules of Procedure Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996. A tribunal has power to extend time for the presentation of a review but as in all matters where discretion is granted to the tribunal it has to look at justice and equity to both parties, not just the one who is aggrieved. In this case at the very least the tribunal would have expected to be provided with consultants' reports in relation to the applicant's mental state at the material time. The tribunal would have expected to have some record or report from a doctor or consultant as to the medication the applicant was taking and the effect that it would have had on him at the relevant period. None of this evidence has been forthcoming. We bear in mind that the applicant was able to go to work, was mobile and in the circumstances could have got advice from either his previous solicitor, Equality Commission or union in relation to asking for a review or presenting a new claim to the tribunal. He took none of these steps. In the circumstances the tribunal is satisfied that this is not a case in which it should exercise its discretion and extend the time limits for presenting an application to review. We have answered question (a) in the negative and so do not go on to consider the grounds for a review. The original decision stands.

____________________________________

M P PRICE

Vice President

Date and place of hearing: 29 January 2004, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: