Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Gillespie v Chief Constable of the Police ... [2010] NIIT 07162_03IT (21 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/07162_03IT.html
Cite as: [2010] NIIT 07162_03IT, [2010] NIIT 7162_3IT

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 7162/03

CLAIMANT: Ian Mark Gillespie

RESPONDENT: Chief Constable of the

Police Service of Northern Ireland

DECISION ON A PRE HEARING REVIEW

The decision of the tribunal is that the decision, dated 25 January 2008 and issued to the parties on 15 February 2008, striking out the claim on the ground that the claimant had failed to comply with Orders for Discovery and Additional Information, is revoked.

Constitution of Tribunal:

President: Miss Eileen McBride

Appearances:

The claimant appeared in person.

The respondent was represented by Mrs M McKenna, Solicitor, of the Crown Solicitor’s Office.

The issues to be determined were whether time should be extended for the application for a review of the decision striking out the claimant’s claim and if so, whether the application should be granted.

1. On 27 June 2003 the claimant presented a claim alleging breaches of the Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998.

2. On 21 August 2006 Orders for Discovery and Additional Information were issued to the claimant to be complied with by 18 September 2006.

3. On 30 November 2007 a Notice was issued to the claimant informing him that unless he complied with the Orders for Additional Information and Discovery dated 21 August 2006 by 21 December 2007 or provided written reasons to the tribunal, by that same date, as to why his claim should not be struck out, his claim would be struck out without further consideration of the proceedings and without further notice or hearing.

4. On 25 January 2008 the claimant’s claim was struck out for failing to comply with the Orders and because he had failed to give any reasons as to why his claim should not be struck out despite having been given the opportunity to do so by notice dated 30 November 2007. The decision was issued to the parties on 15 February 2008.

5. On 27 May 2009 the claimant applied for a review of the decision striking out his claim on the ground that he had not received the documentation referred to above.

6. On 9 July 2009 the claimant was informed that a Hearing would be arranged to consider whether time should be extended for his application for a review of the decision striking out his claim and if so whether the application should be granted. Unfortunately that correspondence of 9 July 2009 and further correspondence of 16 July 2009 also incorrectly suggested that his claim had not been struck out and a Case Management Discussion took place on 18 August 2009 on that basis. The claimant did not attend that Case Management Discussion. I explained these errors and apologised to the claimant for them at this Pre Hearing Review.

7. By Notice dated 26 July 2010 the parties were informed that this Pre Hearing Review would take place to determine whether time should be extended for the application for a review of the decision striking out the claimant’s claim and whether the application should be granted.

8. Mrs McKenna indicated that in light of the circumstances she did not object to the review application. I am satisfied that in light of the claimant’s circumstances he did not receive documentation from the tribunal and that his application for an extension of time in which to review and his review application should both be granted.

9. I informed that the claimant that the outcome of the Catherine Diane Armstrong case was that the tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear and determine alleged breaches within the three month period leading up to the date of the application. I informed the claimant that he was not bound by that decision and that it was also open to him to seek an extension of time. However, I also informed the claimant that if he proceeded unsuccessfully the respondent had indicated that he would be seeking an Order for Costs against the claimant.

10. Mrs McKenna undertook to provide the relevant documentation to the claimant for the three month period, namely 27 March 2003 to 27 June 2003 by 6 October 2010. The claimant agreed to identify any breaches to Mrs McKenna by 20 October 2010.

The claimant agreed to notify the tribunal as soon as possible thereafter whether he intends to pursue or withdraw his claim.

______________________________________

E McBride

President

Date and place of hearing: 15 September 2010, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010