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 >>
Skelton v Mitchelin Plc [2006] NIIT 252/06 (22 June 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2006/252_06.html
Cite as:
[2006] NIIT 252/6,
[2006] NIIT 252/06
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 252/06
CLAIMANT: Tom Skelton
RESPONDENT: Mitchelin Plc
REVIEW OF A DECISION TO REJECT A CLAIM
The decision of the tribunal is that the decision to reject the claim is revoked and the claim is now accepted.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Vice President (sitting alone): Mrs Price
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Ms M Orr, Solicitor, of Worthingtons, Solicitors.
The respondent did not appear.
- The claimant had presented a claim to the tribunal, Case Reference No: 459/05. It was presented on 9 February 2006 and was rejected because it did not contain prescribed information in accordance with Rule 1(4)(c) of Schedule 1 of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005, in particular it did not contain the claimant's date of birth.
- The Secretary of the Tribunals wrote to Worthingtons, Solicitors, by letter dated 24 February 2006 rejecting the claim for the reason outlined above.
- The claim was presented again on 27 February 2006 and accepted in full. I have considered the letter written by the claimant's solicitor to the tribunal on 27 February 2006 requesting a review of the original decision and highlighting that there was a resulting delay in the claimant submitting her form again. The reason given for the failure to include the date of birth as prescribed information was due to an administrative oversight, on the part of the claimant's representative. I have considered the contents of the claim presented and am satisfied that the original claim was set out in full apart from the date of birth. I accept Ms Orr's submission that it was an administrative oversight which was corrected as soon as the claimant's solicitors became aware. In the circumstances, under Rule 34(3)(a) I am satisfied that this claim should be reviewed in the interests of justice for the reasons outlined above.
- There was no appearance or objection by the respondent.
Vice President:
Date and place of hearing: 22 June 2006, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: