Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

 

CASE REF:     593/10
1712/10

 

CLAIMANT:                 Anna Elizabeth Yvonne Stirrup

 

RESPONDENT:           Ufuoma Obahor T/A Summers Dry Cleaners

 

 

DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

 

 

Constitution of Tribunal:

 

Chairman:                   Miss E M McCaffrey

 

 

1.       By unanimous decision of an Industrial Tribunal in the above cases issued to the parties on the 8 August 2011, the Tribunal found that the claimant had been unlawfully dismissed by the respondent in that she had been victimised contrary to Regulation 4 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006.  We also found that the claimant suffered unlawful deductions from her wages and the respondent was ordered to pay the claimant damages as set out in that decision.

 

2.       By email sent to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals on 18 August 2011 the respondent sought to lodge an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal.  As the letter does not set out any legal grounds for an appeal, and such an appeal cannot in any event be sent to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals but must be sent direct to the Court of Appeal, I am treating this as an application for review under Rule 34 of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005.

 

3.       The email from the respondent reads as follows:-

 

          “Dear Sir/Madame

 

          My name is Rev Obahor.  I am writing to appeal the decision of the Tribunal in a case judgement against me.  Case Reference 593/10, 1712/10.”

 

          In the Judgements, the Tribunal believed the claimant Anna Stirrup without any physical evidence.  The chair lady of numerous occasions did not allow the my legal representative to explore my defence.

 

          I was not properly represented in the panel as no member was from a different ethnic origin. 

 

          The Tribunal I believe have acted is a biased, discriminatory and prejudiced manner against me.

 

          PS I will be doing the appeal in person.  So can I please be sent the procedures. 

 

          Yours Pastor Obahor.”

4.       Under Rule 34(3) it is clear that decisions may be reviewed on the following grounds only, namely that:

 

          “(a)     The decision was wrongly made as a result of an administrative error;

 

          (b)      A party did not receive notice of the proceedings leading to the decision;

 

          (c)      The decision was made on the absence of a party;

 

          (d)      New evidence has become available since the conclusion of the hearing to which the decision relates, provided that its existence could not reasonably have been known of or foreseen at that time; or

 

          (e)      The interests of justice require such a review.”

 

5.       As I do not believe that this application falls within grounds (a) – (d) of Rule 34(3) I am treating this as an application for review under ground (e) i.e. that the interests of justice require such a review.

 

6.       I have carefully considered the decision which was issued and reviewed my notes of the hearing.

 

7.       I believe that the decision issued by the tribunal in this matter sets out clearly the basis for our decision and the reasons for it.  I do not agree that on numerous occasions the respondent’s legal representative was not allowed to explore his defence.  On the contrary, his representative was given every opportunity to present the case fully and to make submissions on the respondent’s behalf, which he did over the two days of the hearing.

 

8.       The respondent suggests that he was not properly represented in the panel as no member was from a different ethnic origin.  However, the case brought by the claimant in this matter alleged unfair dismissal and victimisation on the basis of the claimant having brought an age discrimination claim.  It would not be usual practice in such circumstances for the tribunal to ensure that there was representation from someone of a different ethnic origin.

 

9.       Under Rule 35 of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005, the application to have a decision reviewed is to be considered by the chairman of the tribunal which made the decision.  Under Rule 35(3) that chairman shall refuse the application if he considers that there are no grounds for the decision to be reviewed under Rule 34(3) or that there is no reasonable prospect of the decision being varied or revoked.

 

10.     For the decisions set out above, I consider there are no grounds for the decision to be reviewed under Rule 34(3) and that there is no reasonable prospect of the decision being varied or revoked.  Accordingly I refuse the application for review.

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman:

 

Date decision issued to parties: