[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions >> Walsh v University of Ulster [2006] NIFET 00527_00FET (16 February 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIFET/2006/00527_00FET.html Cite as: [2006] NIFET 527_FET, [2006] NIFET 00527_00FET

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 
FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

CASE REFS: 00527/00 FET

03181/00

185/01 FET

1710/01

105/01 FET

1290/01

339/01 FET

2467/01

CLAIMANT: Padraig Walsh

RESPONDENTS: 1. University of Ulster

2. Alastair Gilmore

3. Sara Hunter

4. Professor John Wilson

5. Oliver McCullough

6. Ronnie Magee

DECISION ON COSTS

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the application for costs by the respondents is dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Vice President: Mrs M Price

Members: Mrs G Savage

Mr Campbell

Appearances:

The claimant appeared in person.

The respondents were represented by Mr B Mulqueen, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by University of Ulster.

1. There have been a number Case Management Discussions culminating in one on 12 October 2005 in relation to eight claims brought by the claimant against the respondents. As a result of Case Management Discussions, the claims had originally been listed for five days hearing from 17 – 21 October 2005.
2. At the Case Management Discussion on 12 October 2005 the claimant referred to difficulties with witness statements and the respondents stated that they wished to have an Order for Disclosure of GP notes and records and Occupational Health notes. The Vice President agreed to examine the GP notes and records which had to be provided to her within 14 days and she would make an Order for those that were relevant to the claims being made.
3. On 14 October 2005 the claimant wrote to the Tribunals and stated that he was withdrawing all his claims. The Tribunal wrote to him advising him that withdrawal under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure does not affect proceedings as to costs preparation time or wasted costs.
4. A telephone memo was created because the respondent's Human Resources Secretary phoned to see what was the position, as the claimant had telephoned her and said that he had withdrawn all his claims.
5. A letter was received from the respondents on 9 November 2005 asking if the cases had been withdrawn and in that letter it stated "that I have confirmed to the claimant that while we have no objections to the withdrawal, we reserve our right to seeks costs incurred to date".
6. As a result of a further letter from the University dated 21 November 2005 a hearing was listed for an application for costs.
7. The claimant submitted a bundle of documentation for the Tribunal to consider. Many of the matters outlined by him related to the substance of his claims and what would have been determined by a Tribunal at hearing. He did, however, state a number of reasons why he withdrew the complaints and the respondents were given a copy of the reasons for withdrawing his complaints.
8. Counsel for the respondents stated that he had prepared the case for hearing and he was seeking his brief fee for preparation of the hearing which had been listed for 19 – 23 November 2005. Counsel stated that because no explanation had been given for the withdrawals, the conduct of the claimant should be viewed as unreasonable. He drew the attention of the Tribunal to the case of McPherson v BNP Parabas (London Branch) [2004] ICR 1398. Mummery J stated, "that the principle of relevance means the Tribunal must have regard to the nature, gravity and effect of the unreasonable conduct as factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion, but that is not the same as requiring the receiving party to prove that specific unreasonable conduct by the paying party caused particular costs to be incurred".
9. The Tribunal has considered the claimant's actions. Throughout the history of these claims, it has been demonstrated that the claimant has been actively pursuing his claims. He has asked for Case Management Discussions because on occasions the respondents did not provide him with documentation or deal with information requests which he considered relevant.
10. It is not imperative that the claimant gives a reason for the withdrawal of his claim. In his case the claimant had his own personal reasons for withdrawing and the Tribunal is aware that he had sought assistance to present his claims and that assistance had been refused. He was representing himself.
11. When the Vice President directed that medical information be disclosed to her for the purposes of granting an Order to the respondents, the claimant then withdrew his applications and the Tribunal is aware that the claimant had personal issues which caused him to make the decision to withdraw the cases. It was most unfortunate that his Notice of Intention to withdraw the cases was not communicated to the respondents by the Office of the Tribunals before the beginning of November 2005. In any event, the respondents knew at the beginning of November 2005 that the claimant was not continuing with his cases and so the hearing in December 2005 was not going to take place.
12. Whilst we appreciate that a great deal of time and expense had been put into the management of the claims and the interlocutory work to this date, we cannot and will not make an award of costs in relation to that. The amount sought by counsel was the brief fee and we do not consider that it would be reasonable to order the claimant to pay this amount. We are satisfied that at all times he believed, and he still does believe, that he had meritious claims to be heard by a Tribunal. In his particular circumstances we do not find that it was unreasonable for him to withdraw his claims and we do not make an award of costs to the respondents.

Vice President:

Date and place of hearing: 16 February 2006, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: