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 >> Walsh v Capita Life & Pensions Regulat... Janet Jensen Gary Fraser [2013] NIIT 00019_13IT (04 April 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2013/19_13IT.html
Cite as: [2013] NIIT 19_13IT, [2013] NIIT 00019_13IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 19/13
CLAIMANT: Denise Walsh
RESPONDENTS: 1. Capita Life & Pensions Regulated Services Ltd
2. Janet Jensen
3. Gary Fraser
DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that the claim as originally formulated, included a claim of harassment on the ground of sex, contrary to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Vice President (sitting alone): Mr N Kelly
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr S Doherty, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Worthingtons, Solicitors.
The respondents were represented by Ms T McCoy, of the HR Department.
1. The purpose of this pre-hearing review was to determine:-
“(i) Whether the claimant’s form includes a claim of harassment on the grounds of sex.
(ii) If not, whether the claim should be amended to include such a claim.”
2. The claim form clearly identified a claim of sex discrimination for the purposes of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (‘the Order’). The box at Paragraph 7.1(d) was ticked. The details of the claim provided in Paragraph 7.4 of the claim form set out, in considerable detail, the allegations brought by the claimant which included clear allegations which amounted to harassment.
3. The respondents’ sole objection to this being treated as an issue was that the word ‘harassment’ was not included specifically in the claim form.
4. There is no requirement to use the specific word ‘harassment’ on a claim form to put forward a claim which amounts to harassment for the purposes of the Order. The claim form provides only for a claim of sex discrimination to be identified and for further particulars to be given in Paragraph 7.4. This has been done.
5. I therefore ruled that insofar as it was necessary, the claim form includes, by necessary implication, a claim of harassment on the ground of sex as a specific sub-species of discrimination on the grounds of sex. No amendment of the claim was therefore necessary. The matter will be dealt with as an issue before the substantive hearing.
6. The respondents’ representative indicated that one of their witnesses had recently given birth and that she was ‘unwilling’ to travel to a tribunal hearing for six months. There is no specific exemption for pregnant women or women who have recently given birth from participation in litigation. However, with the agreement of the claimant’s representatives, the matter is listed for:-
2 – 4 September 2013
For the record, if a witness indicates that he or she is ‘unwilling to travel’ the matter will proceed in the absence of that witness.
7. Given the later date for hearing, the original directions are amended so that the claimant’s witness statements should be exchanged no later than 5.00 pm on 31 May 2013 and the respondents’ witness statements should be exchanged no later than 5.00 pm on 11 July 2013.
Vice President:
Date and place of hearing: 27 March 2013, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
Notice
1. If any party fails and/or is unable to comply with any of the above Orders, any application arising out of such failure or inability to comply must be made promptly to the tribunal and in accordance with the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005.
2. Failure to comply with any of these Orders may result in a Costs Order or a Preparation Time Order or a Wasted Costs Order or an Order that the whole or part of the claim, or as the case may be, the response may be struck out and, where appropriate, the respondent may be debarred from responding to the claim altogether.
3. Under Article 9(4) of the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement to grant discovery and inspection of documents under Rule 10(2)(d) of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005 shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding Level 3 on the standard scale - £1,000 at 3 September 2007, but subject to alteration from time to time.
4. A party may apply to the tribunal to vary or revoke any of the above Orders in accordance with the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005.