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 >> Manna v Vera McCourt Vera McCourt [2011] NIIT 01386_10IT (27 May 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2011/01386_10IT.html Cite as: [2011] NIIT 1386_10IT, [2011] NIIT 01386_10IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
In exercise of the powers conferred on me by Rule 34 (5) of Schedule 1 to the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (NI) 2005, I consider it appropriate to conduct a review of my own initiative of the decision in this case promulgated on 5 January 2011. Under Rule 34 (2) (e) I allow the application for review to the extent only that the original decision to award the payment of notice pay to the claimant be revoked.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr T Browne
Reasons:
1. I have considered the respondent’s application for a review of the decision of the tribunal promulgated on 5 January 2011. Pursuant to Rule 35(3) of the Rules of Procedure as set out in Schedule 1 to the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005, I refuse the application in part as I consider that for that part there are no grounds for the decision to be reviewed under Rule 35 (3). To the extent however that the respondent has challenged the part of the original decision regarding the notice pay, I have decided that in the interests of justice that issue should be reviewed and I have resolved it in favour of the respondent.
2. The decision was promulgated on 5 January 2011 awarding the claimant £1,282.65. By letter dated 11 January 2011 the respondent requested the tribunal to review its decision. The respondent conceded in her letter that her failure to attend the original hearing had been her own fault, but nevertheless requested a further hearing, to produce information contained in documentation which had been available to her at the time of the hearing.
3. Rule 34(3) (d) provides that decisions may be reviewed where new evidence has become available since the conclusion of the hearing to which the decision relates, provided that its existence could not reasonably have been known of or foreseen at that time. I consider that the documentation produced does not constitute new evidence as its contents were in existence at the time of and could have been made available at the hearing.
4. I then considered whether the application fell within Rule 34 (3) (e) of the 2005 Rules, namely whether the interests of justice require such a review. I have had regard to the authority of Flint v Eastern Electricity Board (QBD) 1975 ICR, which held that decisions of the tribunal should in the interests of justice be as final as possible and only in unusual circumstances should the parties be allowed to invoke that paragraph. I consider that the issues between the parties were simple and straightforward and the respondent was well aware of all the issues being raised by the claimant. I do not consider that there were unusual circumstances in this case to permit the additional documentation to be considered as a possible basis for allowing a review under Rule 34 (3). I am mindful of the necessity to balance the interests of justice as between the claimant and respondent and also the public interest that proceedings of this kind should be as final as possible. I therefore refuse the application in that regard.
5. As regards the £144.00 notice pay however, I consider that it is in the interests of justice to review the original decision. Having revisited that aspect, I am satisfied that it was the claimant who resigned, and that it therefore was she who ought to have complied with the requirement to give proper notice to the respondent, but did not. That aspect of the original decision therefore has been reviewed in the respondent’s favour and the respondent is no longer required to pay £144.00 to the claimant.
This is a relevant decision for the purposes of the Industrial Tribunals (Interest) Order (Northern Ireland) 1990.
Chairman:
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
