[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> McGarrigle v Board of Governors, St Brecan’s High School & Anor (Application Review) [2002] NIIT 2666_99 (15 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2002/139.html Cite as: [2002] NIIT 2666_99

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

 


McGarrigle v Board of Governors, St Brecan's High School & Anor (Application Review) [2002] NIIT 02666_99 (15 October 2002)

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 02666/99SD

APPLICANT: James McGarrigle

RESPONDENTS: 1. Board of Governors, St Brecan's High School

2. CCMS

DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW

In exercise of the power conferred on me by Rule 11(5) of Schedule 1 to the Industrial Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 I refuse the application for a review of the decision of the tribunal promulgated on 22 July 2002 on the grounds that it has no reasonable prospect of success.

REASONS

1. The Tribunal heard evidence in relation to a selection and recruitment exercise carried out for the post of an Assistant Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator in early 1999. The Tribunal found that the applicant had been unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of his sex, contrary to the provisions of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, in the arrangements that were made for the shortlisting of the post. The Tribunal awarded a sum of £3,175 for injury to feelings. The Tribunal did not award any loss to the applicant in terms of salary by not obtaining the post. The reasons for this were stated at paragraph 6 of the decision and related to the scores given to the applicant at his interview and the comments that were made. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant would in any event have got the position.
2. The applicant was represented at the Tribunal by his full-time union official. He wrote a letter himself on 1 August 2002 asking for a review of the Tribunal's decision in the interests of justice. His application related to the fact that he should have been awarded at least £1,500 per year as his loss for not obtaining the appointment.
3. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is unhappy with the outcome of his case but that does not mean that it has to be reviewed in the interests of justice. The Tribunal has given its reasons for its findings and I refuse the application for a review because it has no reasonable prospect of success.

____________________________________

M P PRICE

Vice President

Date decision issued to parties: