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 >> Orr v Williams Industrial Services L... [2010] NIIT 1494_10IT (02 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/1494_10IT.html
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1494/10
CLAIMANT: John Orr
RESPONDENTS: 1. Williams Industrial Services Ltd
2. Northern Ireland Water Ltd
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s claims are dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr Patrick Kinney
Appearances:
The claimant did not appear and was not represented.
The first-named respondent did not appear and was not represented.
The second-named respondent was represented by Mr Barr, Solicitor, of Dundas & Wilson CSLLP, Solicitors.
Facts
1. The claimant lodged the claim for redundancy pay and notice pay against the first-named respondent. In its response the first-named respondent denied liability and referred to an earlier tribunal decision in which the worker was found by the tribunal to be an employee of the second-named respondent. On this basis the second-named respondent was joined to proceedings.
2. Mr Barr has appeared today on behalf of the second-named respondent. There is no appearance and no explanation for the absence of either the claimant or the first-named respondent. Mr Barr in his submissions pointed out that the claimant in fact made no claim against the second-named respondent and has identified the first-named respondent as his employer. However, I consider that there is insufficient information on the papers to satisfy me that it is appropriate to make a finding in the claimant’s favour. The tribunal did not have the benefit of hearing evidence from the claimant. I therefore determine that the claimant’s claims be dismissed.
3. Mr Barr has made an application for the second-named respondent’s costs. He seeks these against the first-named respondent. He points out that the second-named respondent was only joined as a result of the first-named respondent’s response which identified an industrial tribunal case. What the first-named respondent did not identify was that that decision was successfully challenged by the second-named respondent in the Court of Appeal. He felt that there was no liability attaching to the second-named respondent and that the second-named respondent was entitled to their costs.
4. I am not determining an issue of costs in this decision as the first-named respondent has not an opportunity to respond. Mr Barr will take the instructions of his clients as to whether or not a costs application is to be pursued. If it is, then he will make written submissions in support of his application for costs to be provided to the first-named respondent and the tribunal by 14 December 2010. The first-named respondent will then have until 14 January 2011 to provide any written submissions to the tribunal and to the second-named respondent. A costs hearing will be held on:-
Friday 28 January 2011 at 10.00 am;
unless the parties confirm that that costs hearing is not required.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 23 November 2010, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: