[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Dehaghani v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland [2005] NIIT 2620_01 (31 August 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2005/2620_01.html Cite as: [2005] NIIT 2620_01, [2005] NIIT 2620_1

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

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 2620/01

CLAIMANT: Keivan Dehaghani

RESPONDENT: The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland

DECISION ON APPLICATION TO REVIEW

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the application to review is refused.

Appearances:

The claimant attended in person.

The respondent was represented by Ms N Murnaghan, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by The Crown Solicitor's Office.

1. The tribunal heard the claim on 25 – 28 April 2005 and a decision was promulgated to the parties on 1 June 2005. The claimant wrote to the Office of the Tribunals on 21 June 2005 asking for a review of the decision. He did not specify on which of the grounds he was applying.
2. The tribunal considered it was appropriate to list the application for a hearing and at that hearing the tribunal accepted that the claimant was making an application under Rule 34(3)(e), namely the interests of justice require such a review.
3. In his letter to the tribunal he stated that the tribunal had made some factual errors in its decision. The tribunal considered its notes and was satisfied that the offer of working from Castlerock Station was made to the claimant whilst he was on sick leave in May 2001 and not in September 2001. However this did not effect the decision of the tribunal in that it found the claimant rejected the offer of a transfer to Castlerock Station. Similarly, in the paragraphs relating to the reason for the decision, the tribunal has checked its notes and the last line of Paragraph 3 should read Inspector Kinkead instead of Kyle and in Paragraph 4 in the final sentence it should read Kinkead instead of Kyle. However this does not effect the decision on the facts that were found. The claimant was seeking an additional amount of damages. He did not wish to have the decision revoked.
4. Where a review is sought on the grounds of interests of justice, although there is a wide discretion given to tribunals it must be exercised judicially and with regard to the interests of all parties and to the public interest in finality in litigation. Seeking a review in the interests of justice is not merely an alternative to the other grounds for review. It has been held to be for cases divided into two categories:-

1. those involving some procedural mishaps; and

2. those where the tribunal's decision has been undermined by events occurring thereafter.

This application does not fall into the second category and it does not fall into the category of procedural mishaps.

5. The claimant may have considered that as there were some minor amendments to the decision that that it could be thought of as a procedural mishap, but when one looks at Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law, Volume 5, under Practice and Procedure, these minor amendments do not amount to a procedural mishap.
6. The tribunal is unanimous in its decision that the application for a review is refused and the original decision stands.

Vice President:

Date: 31 August 2005, Belfast

Date issued to parties: