Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

 

 

CASE REF: 293/15

 

 

 

CLAIMANT: Kerrie Smyth

 

 

RESPONDENT: The Personal representatives of Catherine Chivers (Deceased)

 

 

Certificate of Correction

 

 

 

The decision issued to the parties on 14 ^th June 2016 contained the incorrect spelling of the claimant's surname.

 

The correct spelling of the claimant's surname is as set out above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employment Judge:

 

 

Date decision recorded in register and issued to the parties on:

 

 

 

 

 

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

 

CASE REF: 293/15

 

 

 

CLAIMANT: Kerrie Smith

 

 

RESPONDENT: The Personal Representatives of Catherine Chivers (Deceased)

 

 

 

DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR A

PREPARATION TIME ORDER

 

The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant's application for a Preparation Time Order is refused.

 

 

Constitution of Tribunal:

Employment Judge (sitting alone): Employment Judge Greene

 

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Mr Gary Jamison.

The respondent was represented by Mr Tom Sheridan of Peninsula Business Services Limited.

 

REASONS

 

1. The claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal. The claim was heard on 30 June, 2 July, 24 August and 23-26 November 2015 at Belfast.

 

2. The industrial tribunal found unanimously that the claimant had been automatically unfairly dismissed, had suffered an ordinary unfair dismissal and awarded her compensation amounting to £7,322.80.

 

3. The claimant made an application for a Preparation Time Order for 100 hours of preparation.

 

4. The application came on for hearing on 4 May 2016. The application falls to be considered under Rules 42-46, Schedule 1, the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005. At the hearing the claimant's representative set out the particular preparation that was done on behalf of the claimant, which amounted throughout the course of the hearing to 127 hours.

 

5. The claimant sought to rely on Rule 44(3) of the 2005 Rules in that the claimant alleged that the respondent had in conducting the proceedings acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably or the conducting of the proceedings has been misconceived.

 

6. The claimant very helpfully provided a written submission in which her representative set out the particular items which gave rise to the application for a Preparation Time Order. The claimant's representative in his submissions alleged that the respondent's defence was misconceived for two reasons and set out 25 examples in which he contended that the respondent was guilty of unreasonable behaviour. For ease of reference the tribunal numbered them consecutively 1-25. In the course of the hearing 11 of the examples of alleged unreasonable behaviour were abandoned or recognised by the claimant's representative that they were not matters which she could be the subject of a Preparation Time Order.

 

7. The respondent had sought in her response to take points in relation to time and whether the appropriate duration of continuous employment to bring a claim was present. The respondent abandoned these points at the hearing. Such points should not have been made. However, they did not add to the duration of the hearing or require any additional effort by the claimant to disprove them as they were clear from the dates of employment and the date of lodging of the claim.

 

8. Although the respondent had admitted that she had automatically dismissed the claimant she was entitled to pursue matters concerning the reduction of compensation under Polkey and to require the claimant to prove her case in relation to ordinary unfair dismissal.

 

9. Although the tribunal was critical of the respondent in its decision, it did not say that the respondent was not entitled to canvas the particular points in its defence or that it was unreasonable for the respondent so to do.

 

10. The tribunal does not consider that there was any unreasonable delay by the respondent in this matter. Where delay occurred it was for specific and understandable reasons.

 

11. The tribunal does not consider that any of the other 14 examples of alleged unreasonable conduct to which the claimant's representative referred in his submission amount to unreasonable behaviour on the part of the respondent. The test of whether a party has been guilty of unreasonable conduct is an objective test.

 

12. Accordingly the tribunal refuses the claimant's claim for a Preparation Time Order.

 

 

 

 

Employment Judge:

 

 

Date and place of hearing: 4 May 2016, Belfast.

 

 

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: