BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Matthews v Chief Constable of the Police ... [2010] NIIT 09020_03IT (16 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2010/09020_03IT.html Cite as: [2010] NIIT 09020_03IT, [2010] NIIT 9020_3IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 9020/03
CLAIMANT: Andrew Matthews
RESPONDENT: Chief Constable of the
Police Service of Northern Ireland
DECISION ON A PRE HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that the decision (issued to the parties on 17 August 2009) striking out the above claim because it had not been actively pursued by the claimant should stand and is not revoked.
Constitution of Tribunal:
President: Miss Eileen McBride
Appearances:
The claimant did not appear and was not represented.
The respondent was represented by Mrs M McKenna, Solicitor, of the Crown Solicitor’s Office.
The issue to be determined at this Pre Hearing Review was whether the decision striking out the claimant’s claim should be revoked.
1. On 17 July 2003 the claimant presented a claim alleging breaches of the Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998.
2. On 29 August 2006 the claimant was ordered to comply with Orders for Discovery and Additional Information by 26 September 2006.
3. On 3 June 2009 the claimant was informed that a Case Management Discussion had been arranged for 17 June 2009 to discuss the progress of his case. He was also informed that if he did not attend the Case Management Discussion an application may be made to strike out his claim because it had not been actively pursued and that if the tribunal considered that his claim had not been actively pursued, a Notice may be sent informing him that his claim would be struck out without further notice, unless he provided reasons within a specified period why his claim should not be struck out.
4. The claimant did not attend the Case Management Discussion on 17 June 2009. Mrs McKenna, on behalf of the respondent, informed the tribunal that the respondent asserted that the claimant did not have any breaches of the Working Time Regulations in the three month period leading up to the date of the claim being lodged and that the tribunal did not therefore have jurisdiction to consider his claim. In view of that fact and the fact that the claimant did not attend the Case Management Discussion, Mrs McKenna made an application that a Notice informing the claimant that his claim would be struck out because it had not been actively pursued should be sent to the claimant forthwith. The Vice President was satisfied that the claimant had not actively pursued his claim and that a Notice should be sent to him informing him that unless he provided reasons why his claim should not be struck out within 14 days of the Notice being sent, his claim would be struck out without further notice or hearing.
5. On 2 July 2009 the said Notice and the record of proceedings setting out the matters referred to at paragraph 4 were issued to the claimant.
6. On 17 August 2009 a decision was issued to the parties striking out the claimant’s claim because it had not been actively pursued by the claimant and because the claimant had failed to give any reasons as to why such an Order should not be made despite having been given the opportunity to do by Notice dated 2 July 2009.
7. On 7 September 2009 the decision striking out the claimant’s claim was returned to the Tribunal Office marked “no longer an employee”.
8. On 24 September 2009 a letter was sent to the claimant explaining the background to the decision striking out his claim and informing the claimant that having obtained his current address from the respondent, the Vice President had directed that a Pre Hearing Review be arranged to consider whether the decision striking out his claim should be revoked and that if it was revoked his claim would be reinstated and progressed accordingly. He was also informed that if he did not attend the Pre Hearing Review it would be concluded that he did not wish to continue these proceedings and that his claim would remain struck out.
9. By Notice dated 21 July 2010 the parties were informed that this Pre Hearing Review would take place on 13 September 2009 to determine whether the decision striking out the claimant’s claim should be revoked.
10. The claimant did not attend Hearing. In light of the history and circumstances of the case and in light of the claimant’s non-attendance, Mrs McKenna asked for the decision striking out the claimant’s claim to stand.
11. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the decision striking out the claimant’s claim on the ground that it had not been pursued should stand and the claim will therefore remain struck out.
______________________________________
E McBride
President
Date and place of hearing: 13 September 2010, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
