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 >> Norris v Initial Retail Cleaning [2006] NIIT 285_06 (3 August 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2006/285_06.html
Cite as: [2006] NIIT 285_6, [2006] NIIT 285_06
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 285/06
CLAIMANT: William Jonathan James Norris
RESPONDENT: Initial Retail Cleaning
DECISION ON REVIEW
I hereby extend the time for consideration of this review to the date hereof.
Further to Rule 36(2) of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005, I hereby of my own motion review the decision not to accept the response in this case and I revoke that decision and direct that the response presented to the tribunal on 18 April 2006 be accepted.
Constitution of Tribunal
Chairman: Mrs M Davey
Reasons
Extension of Time
I am satisfied that it is just and equitable to extend the time for this review, because an error was made in rejecting the response and this error was not realised within 14 days from the date the decision to reject the response was sent to the parties.
Review
The last day for the presentation of the response was 17 April 2006. This was a public holiday. The response to the claim was e-mailed to the tribunal at 21.04 on 18 April 2006, although it was date-stamped by the tribunal as being received on 19 April 2006. Regulation 11(7) of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 provides:-
"Where any act must or may be done within a certain period ending upon a Sunday or a public holiday, that period ends on the first day following that is not a Sunday or a public holiday."
The response presented on 18 April 2006 was therefore in time and should not have been rejected. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that the decision not to accept the review should be revoked, as otherwise the respondent would suffer much greater prejudice than the claimant, as the respondent would be debarred from taking part in the proceedings.
Both the claimant's representative and the respondent were given the opportunity to object in writing to this course of action and neither did so.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 3 August 2006, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: