Rodgers v Council for Catholic Maintained Schools & Ors [2004] NIFET 217_02 (22 September 2004)

BAILII [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 >> Rodgers v Council for Catholic Maintained Schools & Ors [2004] NIFET 217_02 (22 September 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIFET/2004/217_02.html
Cite as: [2004] NIFET 217_2, [2004] NIFET 217_02

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


     
    FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

    CASE REF: 00217/02FET

    1127/02

    APPLICANT: Carmel Rodgers

    RESPONDENTS: 1. Council for Catholic Maintained Schools

    2. Mr McArdle

    3. Mrs McCool

    DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

    The application for review is refused as in my opinion it has no reasonable prospect of success.

  1. At a hearing on 3 September 2004 the Fair Employment Tribunal dismissed a number of complaints brought by the applicant by virtue of Rule 4(8) of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004. It had concluded that the applicant's response to orders from the Tribunal was quite uninformative if not downright contemptuous. She advanced no reason to show cause why her applications should not be struck out. The applicant was allowed to continue with her complaint of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of religious belief despite a failure to respond to orders because the complaint of gender discrimination was unaffected by the orders of the Tribunal.

  2. The respondent sought costs of £1,000. The Tribunal concluded that the conduct of the proceedings by the applicant was unreasonable and her blatant failure to obey the Tribunal's orders resulted in a day long hearing. Rightly or wrongly, the Tribunal did take into account the means of the applicant and made an award of £500. The applicant's response was to tell us that if she had the money, she would burn it before she would pay it.

  3. The applicant now seeks to appeal against the award of costs having told the tribunal at the hearing that she regarded the Tribunal's decision as otherwise fair. The grounds of her appeal are –

    4. (a) the award was unjust as she had responded to the Tribunal's orders even though deemed inadequate;
    (b) she was a lay person not well briefed in law; and
    (c) she had no income.
    All of these matters were canvassed during the hearing and taken into account on reaching the decision to award £500.
    They disclose no grounds for a review. Accordingly I refuse the application as in my opinion it has no reasonable prospect of success.

    ______________________________________

    J E MAGUIRE

    President

    22 September 2004

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIFET/2004/217_02.html