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 >> Kelly Phelan v Kelly Phelan (Other) [2018] NIIT 01608_17IT (01 March 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2018/01608_17IT.html Cite as: [2018] NIIT 01608_17IT, [2018] NIIT 1608_17IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REFS: 1608/17 &
1778/17
CLAIMANTS: 1. Sean Bosco Kelly
2. John (Sean) Phelan
RESPONDENTS: 1. Schivo Group Ltd
2. Schivo NI Ltd (in liquidation)
DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that it refuses to strike out the claimants' claims pursuant to Rule 18(7)(b) or require the claimants to pay a deposit pursuant to Rule 20 of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Employment Judge (sitting alone): Employment Judge Greene
Appearances:
Ms Sarah Agnew appeared for the first claimant instructed by O'Hare Solicitors. The second claimant was instructed by Mark Reid, Solicitor.
The first respondent was not in attendance or represented. The second respondent was not in attendance or represented.
1. At a Case Management Discussion on 9 November 2017 Employment Judge Buggy ordered that a Pre-Hearing Review would convene to consider whether the claims against the first respondent by both claimants should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success or that a deposit would be ordered in relation to both claimants' claims for unfair dismissal.
2. The Pre-Hearing Review came on for hearing on today 16 February 2017 to consider whether the claimants' claims against the first respondent should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success or whether a deposit should be imposed on the claimants in order that the claims should continue against the first respondent.
3. The tribunal had regard to the claim form, the responses, a bundle of documents prepared by the claimant and submissions on behalf of the claimant.
4. Having considered the claim forms, the responses, the documents opened to the tribunal and the submissions on behalf of the claimants I was not satisfied that I could conclude that there was no reasonable prospect of the claimants succeeding in their claims against the first respondent and therefore I refused to strike out the claimants' claims against the first respondent.
5. Having considered the claim forms, the responses, the documents opened to the tribunal and the submissions on behalf of the claimants I was not satisfied that I could conclude that there was little reasonable prospect of success in relation to the claimants' claims against the first respondent and therefore I refuse to make Deposit Orders.
6. On the basis of the evidence and submissions made to the tribunal there is some evidence of the claimants being able to advance some basis, even if not yet provable, that would support their contentions that they were employees of the first respondent.
7. Reasons were given orally for the tribunal's decision on today, 16 February 2018.
Employment Judge:
Date and place of hearing: 16 February 2018, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
