Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 892/08

CLAIMANT: Phyllis Anderson

RESPONDENT: Roland Graham

T/A Automann Driving School

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW

The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claim should not be struck-out, pursuant to Rule 18(7)(d) of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure, on the grounds that the claim before the tribunal has not been actively pursued.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman (sitting alone): Mr N Drennan QC

Appearances:

The claimant appeared in person and was not represented.

The respondent did not appear and was not represented.

Reasons

1. This hearing was arranged to consider whether the claimant’s claim should be struck-out, pursuant to Rule 18(7)(d) of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005 (‘the Rules of Procedure’) on the grounds that the claim before the tribunal was not actively pursued. The claimant was given notice, relating to the said application, pursuant to Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure.

2. By letter dated 10 October 2008 the claimant was informed of a Case Management Discussion to be held in this matter which was to consider the making of case management directions/orders to enable the claim to be listed for hearing. The letter stated the hearing was to be held on 17 November 2008 at 11.00 am. The respondent appeared, but the claimant did not and failed to give any indication why she had not attended. As a result of her non-attendance the Vice President ordered the Strike-out Notice to be issued. By letter dated 18 November 2008, received by the tribunal on 20 November 2008, the claimant indicated she had not received the letter of 10 October 2008.

3. Arising from the said correspondence, this hearing was arranged. The parties were informed, by letter dated 25 November 2008, that, if at this hearing, the claimant’s claim was not struck-out the tribunal would then go on to consider the matters which it had intended to do at the Case Management Discussion on 17 November 2008, as set out in the tribunal’s letter dated 10 October 2008.

4. The claimant attended this hearing. She had sought, in a letter received by the tribunal on 15 December 2008, an adjournment, due to the recent death of her mother; but this was refused as the respondent was unable to be contacted to ascertain whether he consented or not. The respondent, without any explanation, did not attend this hearing.

5. The claimant repeated, as set out in her letter dated 18 November 2008, she had not received the tribunal’s letter dated 10 October 2008 and it was for that reason she had not attended the hearing on 17 November 2008. Not, without hesitation, I am prepared to accept her explanation, noting, in particular, she attended this hearing, despite the recent death of her mother. I am satisfied the letter of 10 October 2008 was sent by the tribunal; but I recognise that letters can get ‘lost in the post’. She also confirmed she wishes to proceed with her claim and has made application for assistance to the Equality Commission.

6. In light of the foregoing, I decided it would not be appropriate to strike-out the claimant’s claim and it would be allowed to proceed. However, in view of the absence of the respondent it was again not possible to progress the matter. This was clearly unfortunate – and, given the absence of any communication from him, I considered whether a similar Strike-out Notice to that given to the claimant should also be issued. I decided not to do so; since in view of the claimant’s understandable personal distress due to the death of her mother, I did not think, even if the respondent had been present, that I could, in the circumstances, have given any relevant and meaningful case management directions/orders. The claimant, understandably, was not at present able to give this matter the necessary attention.

7. However, this matter will be re-listed for a Case Management Discussion, at the end of January 2009/beginning of February 2009. The parties will be notified in due course of the date and time of that hearing. Both parties must recognise it is essential they each attend that hearing. In the meantime each party, if appropriate and it wishes to do so, should issue, as a matter of urgency, Notices for Additional Information/Discovery and Inspection/Written Answers to Questions and each party should reply to any such Notice in advance of the next Case Management Discussion.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 16 December 2008, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: