THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	1101/06

CLAIMANT:		Jean Scott

RESPONDENTS:		1.  CDC (NI) Ltd
		2.  Patrick Kearney
		3.  Neil Adair

DECISION ON A REVIEW

By consent, the respondents’ application for a review of a Chairman’s decision not to accept the respondents’ response in respect of the sex discrimination complaint is granted.  In accordance with Rule 6(5) the Secretary shall therefore accept the response in respect of the sex discrimination complaint as well as the unfair dismissal complaint.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman (sitting alone):		Miss E McBride, President

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Ms L Lynch, Solicitor, of Worthingtons, Solicitors.

The respondents were represented by Mrs S Murphy, Solicitor, of Murphys Solicitors.  

Reasons

1.	On 24 August 2006 the claimant presented a claim to the industrial tribunal.  It contained complaints of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination against the respondents.

2.	On 9 October 2006 the respondents presented a response to that claim.  The response was intended to be on behalf of all three respondents and has been accepted as such.  The response to the unfair dismissal complaint was accepted.  The response to the sex discrimination complaint was rejected because the respondents had failed to set out the grounds of their defence, in accordance with Rule 4(4)(d) of the Industrial Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) 2005. 

3.	By correspondence, dated 17 October 2006, the respondents were notified of that rejection.  By correspondence, dated 27 October 2006, they applied for a review of the decision to reject their response in respect of the sex discrimination complaint on the ground that the interests of justice required a review.  

4.	This review application was therefore listed.  Having considered the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Grimmer –v- KLM City Hopper UK (2005) IRLR596, the claimant consented to the review application being granted.  I was satisfied that the response should have been accepted and therefore granted the review application.  In accordance with Rule 6(5) the Secretary shall therefore accept the response in respect of the sex discrimination complaint as well as the unfair dismissal complaint.  

5.	Mrs Murphy made an application to have the second and third respondents dismissed from the proceedings on the ground that they were not proper respondents.  Ms Lynch made it clear that the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint was against the first respondent only and that it was solely her sex discrimination complaint which was against all three respondents.  I was not prepared to dismiss the second and third respondents from the sex discrimination complaint at this stage.  If, however, having sought and obtained additional information from the claimant, the second and third respondents wish to apply to be dismissed from the sex discrimination complaint, an application should be made to the tribunal in accordance with Rule 11.

______________________________________
E McBride
President

Date and place of hearing:  1 February 2007, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: