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 >> Patterson v Chief Constable of the Police ... [2010] NIIT 07188_03IT (21 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/07188_03IT.html
Cite as: [2010] NIIT 07188_03IT, [2010] NIIT 7188_3IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 7188/03
CLAIMANT: Gregory Edward Patterson
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 (issued to the parties on 15 July 2009), striking out the above claim because it had not been actively pursued by the claimant should stand and is not revoked.
Constitution of Tribunal:
President: Miss Eileen McBride
Appearances:
The claimant did not appear and was not represented.
The respondent was represented by Mrs M McKenna, Solicitor, of the Crown Solicitor’s Office.
The issue to be determined at this Pre Hearing Review was whether the decision striking out the claimant’s claim should be revoked.
1. On 30 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. By letter received on 19 October 2006, the claimant sought an extension of time to comply with the Orders and the Vice President granted his application and extended the time limit for compliance to 10 November 2006.
3. On 22 May 2009 the claimant was notified that a Case Management Discussion had been arranged for 15 June 2009 to discuss the progress of his case. He was notified that if he did not attend the Case Management Discussion an application may be made to strike out his claim because it had not been actively pursued. He was also informed that if the tribunal considered that his claim had not been actively pursued, a Notice may be sent to him informing him that his claim would be struck out without further notice, unless he provided reasons within a specified period why his claim should not be struck out.
4. The claimant did not attend the Case Management Discussion which took place on 15 June 2009 and the respondent asserted that the claimant did not have any breaches of the Working time Regulations in the three month period leading up to the date of his claim being lodged.
5. In view of his non attendance at the Case Management Discussion and the fact that the respondent asserted that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider his claim, Mrs McKenna made an application that a Notice informing the claimant that his claim would be struck out because it had not been actively pursued, should be sent to the claimant forthwith.
6. The Vice President was satisfied that the claimant had not actively pursued his claim and that a Notice should be sent to him informing him that unless he provided reasons why his claim should not be struck within 14 days of the Notice being sent his claim would be struck out without further notice.
7. A strike out notice and a copy of the record of proceedings explaining the matters referred to at paragraph 6 above were issued to the claimant on 23 June 2009.
8. On 8 July 2009 the claimant’s claim was struck out by the Vice President because it had not been actively pursued by the claimant and because the claimant had failed to give any reasons as to why such an Order should not be made despite having been given the opportunity to do so by Notice dated 23 June 2009. The decision was issued to the parties on 15 July 2009.
9. On 30 July 2009 the strike out Notice and the record of proceedings and the decision dismissing the claim were returned to the Tribunal Office without having been received by the claimant.
10. On 3 August 2009 a new address was provided for the claimant by the respondent and on 9 September 2009 a letter was issued to the claimant explaining the background to the dismissal decision and informing him that the Vice President had directed that a Pre Hearing Review be arranged to consider whether the decision striking out his claim should be revoked and that if it was revoked his claim would be reinstated and progressed accordingly.
11. By Notice dated 22 July 2010, the parties were informed that this Pre Hearing Review would take place on 14 September 2010 to determine whether the decision striking out the claimant’s claim should be revoked.
12. The claimant did not attend this Hearing. In light of the history to the case, the claimant’s non attendance and the fact that the respondent was asserting that the claimant did not have breaches of the Working Time Regulations in the three month period leading up to the date of his claim being lodged, Mrs McKenna made an application for the original decision dismissing the claim on the ground that the claimant had failed to actively pursue it to stand.
13. In light of the circumstances outlined above I granted that application. In those circumstances the decision dated 8 July 2009 and issued on 15 July 2009, striking out the claimant’s claim because it had not been actively pursued, should stand and is not revoked.
______________________________________
E McBride
President
Date and place of hearing: 14 September 2010, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: