White v Fold Housing Association [2008] NIIT 1602_05IT (15 February 2008) 

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:  1602/05

CLAIMANT:			Sharon White

RESPONDENT:		Fold Housing Association

DECISION
The claimant’s application for a review of the decision to dismiss her claim is refused.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman:		Mrs Watson
Members:		Mr Boyd
			Mr Fields

Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr Atchison, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Joseph McCollum, Solicitors.
The respondent was represented by Mr Sefton, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Murphy & Co, Solicitors.

This summary decision was delivered orally to the parties at the hearing on 8 January 2008.

This application for a review of the decision of the tribunal dated 8 November 2007 to dismiss the above-numbered claim following a request to do so by the parties, was based on two grounds;

(i)	Rule 34 (3) (a), and

(ii)	Rule 34 (3) (e), of the Industrial Tribunal Constitution and Rules of Procedure Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005.

In relation to Rule 34 (3) (a), Mr Atchison contended that the details of the discussions between the claimant and her former representative, Mr  Bloomer, prior to the withdrawal request, constituted new evidence for the consideration of this tribunal.  The tribunal did not agree with this contention.

The second limb of the application, under Rule 34 (3) (e), that the interests of justice required such a review, was also rejected by the tribunal.

The tribunal accepted that it had a wide discretion in this regard and carefully balanced the interests of the parties.  However, the tribunal was also mindful that it is also in the interests of justice that tribunal decisions are final and binding.  In our view, this is especially so where, as in this instance, the decision follows an application agreed between the parties.

In arriving at this decision to refuse the review application, the tribunal were persuaded by the comments of Mummery J. in the case of IRONSIDES RAY & VIALS -V- LINDSAY [1994] IRLR 381.

“Failings of a party’s representative, professional or otherwise, will not generally constitute a ground for review.  That would risk encouraging a disappointed claimant to seek to re-argue his case by blaming his representative for the failure of his claim and could involve the tribunal in inappropriate investigations into the competence of the representative who is not present or represented at the review.  If there is a justified complaint against a representative, that may be the subject of other proceedings and procedure.”

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	8 January 2008, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: