Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 4335/17IT

CLAIMANT: Lauren Morton

RESPONDENT: Newgate Inns Limited (in liquation)

REVIEW DECISION

The decision of the tribunal is that the application for a review of the decision to strike out the claim is refused.

Constitution of Tribunal: Vice President (sitting alone) Mr N Kelly

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Ms Zoe Cornelissen, Barrister-at-Law instructed by Proactive Law Limited.

The respondent was represented by Mr Andrew Spratt, AL Goodbody Solicitors.

1. The recent history of this matter is as follows:

(i) here was a case management discussion on 26 January 2018. That case management discussion had been notified by post to both the claimant and the respondent. Neither notification was returned and the respondent attended the case management discussion. The claimant did not attend and was not represented at the case management.

(ii) An Unless Order was issued on the 26 June 2018. That Order stated that an Employment Judge intended to strike out the claim on the ground that it had not been actively pursued, unless the claimant responded directly to the tribunal within seven days providing an explanation for the claimant's failure to attend or be represented at the case management discussion on 1 November 2017, an explanation for the claimant's failure to attend or be represented at the case management discussion on 26 January 2018 and confirmation that the High Court has granted permission for the continuance of this litigation.

(iii) No response of any sort was received from the claimant or the claimant's solicitor to that Order within the specified time limit although it was served by post on the claimant's solicitor on 29 January 2018 and was not returned. A copy was served on the same date by post on the respondent's solicitor who received it.

A letter which was dated 31 January 2018 (which would have been within the time limit) was received by the tribunal on 8 February 2018. The envelope in which that reply was contained had been franked on 7 February 2018 at 20.38.39. It therefore seems clear that the response came significantly outside the time limit on the Order.

(iv) Before the letter received on 8 February 2018 had been referred to the Vice President, a decision was signed on 8 February 2018 and issued on 9 February 2018 striking out the claim because it had not been actively pursued by the claimant and stating that the claimant had failed to give any reasons as to why such an Order should not be made despite having been given an opportunity to do so by notice dated 26 January 2018.

2. The letter from the claimant's solicitor dated the 31 January 2018, but posted and received much later, was treated as an application for review of the strike out decision. The claimant's solicitor had pointed out correctly that the claimant had been represented at the case management discussion on 1 November 2017. He stated that he had no record of being contacted in relation to the case management discussion on 10 January 2018 and that the claimant had not been aware of a case management discussion on 26 January.

3. The claimant's solicitor did not give any explanation for the failure to comply with the Unless Order within the time stated.

4. Counsel for the claimant did not have any information in relation to matters after the 16 May 2017 other than instructions that the claimant's solicitor had met with the liquidator on 8 March 2018 and that he wished to apply for a postponement in this matter.

5. I cannot entertain any application for a postponement of a matter which has already been struck out and which has been terminated. There was no argument before me as to why the decision to strike out the claim should be set aside and in particular no argument in relation to the claimant's failure to respond to the Unless Order within the time limit. There was no response at all to (iii) of the Unless Order. It does not appear that the High Court has granted permission or that the liquidator has granted permission for the continuance of this litigation.

6. The application for review is therefore refused.

Vice President:

Date and place of hearing: 23 March 2018, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: