[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Fleeton v Down Lisburn Health & Social Services Trust [2007] NIIT 136_05 (24 July 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2007/136_05.html Cite as: [2007] NIIT 136_5, [2007] NIIT 136_05

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

 
FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

CASE REFS: 136/05 FET

948/05

CLAIMANT: Eveline Fleeton

RESPONDENT: Down Lisburn Health & Social Services Trust

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW

The decision of the Tribunal is that the response should not be struck out for failure to comply with an Order of the Tribunal dated 20 March 2007.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman (sitting alone): Mrs P Smyth

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Mr P Boomer, of NIPSA.

The respondent was represented by Mr M McEvoy, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Carson McDowell, Solicitors.

1. A pre-hearing review was arranged to consider the claimant's application that the response should be struck out because the claimant alleged that an Order of the Tribunal had not been complied with.
2. By letter dated 20 July 2007 the respondent wrote to the claimant in relation to three items of discovery which had been sought by the claimant, namely records and minutes relating to the grievance/job evaluation panel meetings held on 15 December 2005, 31 December 2005, 28 February 2006, 2 April 2006, 10 April 2006 and 12 June 2006. In addition the claimant sought notes and records relating to a meeting between Phyllis McCullough, Jennifer Buchanan and Paul McBrearty on 31 October 2002. Finally, the claimant sought the job description for Helen Kincaid, Former Corporate Affairs Manager. In relation to those items the respondent stated that no minutes were ever made in relation to these meetings nor are there any notes and records available. These items have never existed and therefore they are not in the respondent's possession, custody, power, or control. In relation to the second item the respondent stated that no notes were taken at the meeting on 31 October 2002 and no records were produced. In relation to the job description of Helen Kincaid the respondent stated that despite strenuous efforts on the part of their clients a job description could not be located. The respondent confirmed that a job description did exist but asserted that it was not now in the respondent's possession, custody, power, or control.
3. Mr Boomer submitted that it was not credible that no notes or records were made of these meetings. I pointed out to Mr Boomer that unless he could produce evidence to refute the assertions of the respondent there were no grounds on which I could strike out the respondent's defence. I did however point out that if at the hearing it transpired that such documents did exist but had not been disclosed that there would be serious consequences for the respondent.
4. Mr Boomer accepted that he does not have any evidence that the respondent's assertions are not correct. In those circumstances I refused the application to strike out the respondent's defence.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 24 July 2007, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: