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 >> Gaile v Homecare Services Northern Ire... [2011] NIIT 01033_11IT (18 December 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/01033_11IT.html
Cite as: [2011] NIIT 1033_11IT, [2011] NIIT 01033_11IT
[New search] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1033/11
CLAIMANT: Colette Mary Sarah Gaile
RESPONDENT: Homecare Services Northern Ireland
DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that unless the claimant provides answers to the respondent’s Notices for Additional Information and Discovery by 22 November 2011, her claim will be dismissed in its entirety.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr B Greene
Appearances:
The claimant was neither represented nor in attendance.
The respondent was represented by Mr Barry Mulqueen, of counsel, instructed by Johnsons Solicitors.
1. The claimant was notified of the date of the Pre-hearing Review on 26 October 2011 and the notice of hearing was sent out on 31 October 2011. Neither document has been returned to the Office of the Tribunals. Neither has there been any representation in writing or orally from or on behalf of the claimant to suggest that she would not be in attendance today or could not be in attendance.
2. Accordingly, the tribunal was satisfied that the claimant had been notified of today’s hearing and proceeded to consider this matter. The respondent did not object.
3. The claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination on 27 April 2011. Following the presentation of the response on 8 June 2011 the claim was listed for a Case Management Discussion on 26 July 2011.
4. The Case Management Discussion could not proceed on 26 July 2011 and it was rescheduled for 1 August 2011.
5. The claimant indicated she was not fit to attend the Case Management Discussion on 1 August 2011 and asked that it be adjourned for at least one month. Accordingly, the Case Management Discussion was rescheduled for 8 September 2011.
6. At the Case Management Discussion on 8 September 2011 the claimant was neither in attendance nor represented. The tribunal was satisfied that she had been notified and was aware of the Case Management Discussion and proceeded in her absence. The normal procedure for Case Management Discussion was followed with issues identified. At the request of the respondent the tribunal made Orders for Additional Information and Discovery to be answered by 29 September 2011 against the claimant in relation to Notices served on her by the respondent on 25 July 2011 scheduled to be answered by 8 August 2011.
7. The tribunal also ordered that a schedule of loss be served on the respondent by 29 September 2011.
8. Bundles were ordered to be agreed and delivered to the Office of the Tribunals by 21 September and the matter was listed for hearing between 28 November and 2 December 2011.
9. Conscious that the claimant was not in attendance the tribunal gave the claimant until 22 September to make any submissions or suggestions in relation to any of the matters timetabled or to agree alternative timetabling with the respondent and to do that by 22 September. Nothing was heard from the claimant.
10. By correspondence of 12 October 2011, the respondent wrote to the claimant and indicated that they were making an application for a Pre-hearing Review to consider whether her claim should be struck out following her failure to provide answers to the Orders for Additional Information and Discovery by 29 September 2011 and with no explanation having been provided. On the same date the respondent wrote to the Office of the Tribunals seeking to have a Pre-hearing Review to consider striking out the claimant’s claim by reason of her failure to comply with the orders of the tribunal.
11. Accordingly, a Pre-hearing Review was scheduled for 11 November 2011 to consider whether the claimant’s claim should be struck out for:-
(a) Failure to comply with orders of the tribunal.
(b) Failure to conduct proceedings reasonably.
(c) Failure to actively pursue proceedings.
12. At the hearing on today, 11 November, the respondent applied to strikeout the claimant’s claim under Rule 18(7)(c), (d) and (e) of the 2005 Rules of Procedure.
13. At the hearing Mr Mulqueen indicated that he acknowledged that a strikeout was a draconian step and therefore asked that the tribunal should make an Unless Order to be complied with within 7 days. He also asked the tribunal to reserve the issue of costs.
14. As the claimant has not complied with the Orders of the tribunal to provide answers to the Notices for Additional Information and Discovery without explanation or contact with the tribunal and as the notices deal with a number of matters, specifically in relation to the nature of the claimant’s disability and treatment the tribunal acceded to the respondent’s application and decided to issue an Unless Order to be complied with within 7 days of the issuing of the Order.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 11 November 2011, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: