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 >> Irvine v Gist Ltd [2010] NIIT 07551_09IT (09 February 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/07551_09IT.html
Cite as: [2010] NIIT 7551_9IT, [2010] NIIT 07551_09IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 7551/09
2452/10
CLAIMANT: George David Irvine
RESPONDENTS: 1. Gist Ltd
2. Martin Macleerie
3. Kirsty Law
DECISION UPON REVIEW
The respondents’ application to review the decision promulgated on 19 October 2010 is hereby rejected.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mrs Órla Murray
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr P Hopkins, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Worthington Solicitors.
The respondents were represented by Mr T Warnock, Barrister-at-law, instructed by DLA Piper Scotland Limited.
Issues
1. The review hearing was arranged to deal with the following issue:
“Whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the review against the second and third respondents given that all parties agreed that the claims against them were out of time”.
Reasons
2. A review decision was promulgated to all parties on 19 October 2010. That decision revoked the rejection of the claimant’s claim against the respondents which was presented to the tribunal on 5 June 2009.
3. The following decision was given orally at the hearing on 2 February 2011:
“(1) The application for a review of the decision sent to the parties on 19 October 2010 is rejected and the following further facts and conclusions are found following the hearing on 29 September 2010.
(2) I have reviewed my notes of the evidence of the claimant given on the last occasion in relation to the delay in lodging his claim between 18 March 2009 (being the expiry of the time limit of the first and second respondents) and the date the claim form was lodged on 5 June 2009.
(3) I am satisfied that the claimant did not know about time limits until he did an internet search shortly before he lodged the first claim. The claimant had had ongoing issues with his employer from August 2008 and he raised grievances on 24 December 2008, 2 January 2009 and 8 April 2009.
(4) The claimant did not know that written grievances were a prerequisite of lodging a tribunal claim. He thought that his employers would be “man enough” to sort out his grievances and resorted to writing his grievances down as he felt they did not want to talk to him about them.
(5) The claimant did an internet search on “diabetes and work” and this generated a response mentioning tribunals.
(6) He then had to consult his sister-in-law on what he should do next due to him not being a ‘book reader’ as it termed it. He decided to put in a claim with her help and advice as he felt that he was getting no answers from his employer.
(7) I am satisfied that the claimant did not know when the time limit started to run nor was he aware of the possibility of claiming until he did the internet search.
(8) I have weighed up the prejudice to the claimant and to the first and second respondents when deciding whether to exercise my discretion. I am satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time in the circumstances in this case. I am particularly swayed by my observation of the claimant as an honest witness and as a very unsophisticated communicator.
(9) I therefore extend time on just and equitable grounds for the claim against the first and second respondents to 6 June 2009 so that the claim form lodged on 5 June 2009 was lodged in time against them.
(10) The claim form lodged on 2 June 2009 was therefore validally served on the second and third respondents on 19 October 2010.
(11) The response form lodged on behalf of all three respondents on 16 November 2010 therefore stands.”
4. That response form is amended by agreement at paragraph 18 to read as follows:
“If, which the respondents do not accept, the claimant is a disabled person for the purposes of the DDA and that the tribunal determines that the claimant was discriminated on grounds of that disability, which is not accepted, the first respondent took all reasonable steps to prevent the discrimination. In the circumstances his claim should be dismissed”.
5. Mr Warnock indicated that, as the first respondent has raised the statutory defence, the issue of whether or not the second and third respondents should seek separate legal advice would be addressed as soon as possible.
16. In order to avoid confusion I propose of my own motion to dismiss claim 7551/09 within 14 days of the promulgation of this decision. If either party objects to this course of action, they must write to the Office of the Tribunals within that period setting out the grounds of their objection. If no objections are received within that period the claim will be dismissed without further notice to the parties.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 2 February 2011, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: