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 >> arley v Northern Ireland Housing Executive [2007] NIIT 3274_01 (2 March 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2007/3274_01.html
Cite as: [2007] NIIT 3274_01, [2007] NIIT 3274_1
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
CASE REFS: 59/05 FET
459/05
CLAIMANT: Katrina Farley
RESPONDENT: Northern Ireland Housing Executive
DECISION
The Tribunal declines to state a case to the Court of Appeal on the questions contained on the requisition of the Claimant.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: (sitting alone): Miss E M McCaffrey
The Tribunal declines to state a case to the Court of Appeal on the questions contained on the requisition of the Claimant.
The Claimant's complaint of religious discrimination and sex discrimination was presented to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal on the 7th day of March 2005 and a copy of that notice is attached and marked “A”. The Respondent entered a notice of appearance to those complaints on the 4th day of April 2005 and a copy of that notice is attached marked “B”. A pre-hearing review was listed for hearing before me on the 8th of September 2006 to deal with preliminary issues as follows:-
Whether the claim of unlawful discrimination on grounds of religious belief was presented within the time limit set out in Article 46 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1988; and
If not, was it just and equitable in all circumstances the case to extend the time limit for the Tribunal to consider this claim, despite the fact that it is out of time.
Whether the claim of sex discrimination was presented within the time limit set out in Article 63 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, as amended ; and
If not, is it just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case for the Tribunal to consider this claim despite the fact that it is out of time.
Whether the Claimant's contentions in relation to both cases have little prospect of success; and
If so, whether the Claimant should be required to pay out a deposit of an amount not exceeding five hundred pounds (£500.00) as a condition of being permitted to continue to take part in the proceedings relating to those matters.
It was the finding of the Tribunal that neither claim had been presented in time and that it was not just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case for the time limit to be extended.
The Tribunal declined to deal with questions 5 and 6 given the answers given to questions 1 – 4 as set out above.
By letter dated the 29th day of November 2006 and received in the Office of the Industrial Tribunals shortly thereafter, the Claimant's representative requested the Tribunal to state a case to the Court of Appeal in relation to its decision dated 23rd of October 2006 on the pre-hearing review. A copy of that letter is attached hereto and marked “C”. No specific questions were stated in the requisition, but the Claimant's representative gave his reasons for requesting the case stated as follows:-
1. “The case was heard in the Claimant's absence.
2. The Claimant was denied a hearing, the right to put forward a defence for consideration, her Human Right (sic) to be heard was denied her.
3. The Claimant's absence was not her fault.
4. The Chairperson did not adhere to the Industrial Tribunal Procedure (Constitution Regulations 2005) N. Ireland (sic) by not considering all written, oral, documents, evidence available to her in accordance with para 18 – D.
5. The Claimant representative (sic) was denied the right to refer too (sic), make available to the tribunal documents relevant to the case by the Chairperson at the hearing of the 8th September 2006.
6. I believe all of the above constitute points of law, I am aware I must lodge the application inside a 42 day period despite having appealed to the Tribunals.”
The Tribunal has considered the issues raised by the Claimant's representative. These do not in the Tribunal's view constitute valid points of law, but are rather issues to do with the conduct of the hearing. Substantially the same points have been raised by the Claimant's representative in a request for a review of the Tribunal's decision of 23rd October 2006. This review hearing has been postponed at the Claimant's request because of the illness of the Claimant's representative and will be dealt with as soon as feasible. The Tribunal is however aware of the requirement to consider a request for a case stated expeditiously and so has decided to issue its decision on this matter.
The Tribunal does not consider that the points raised in the requisition pose valid questions of law requiring answers from the Court of Appeal and therefore refuses to state a case on these questions unless ordered to do so by a superior court.
Chairman:
Date: February 2007