THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	1014/02

CLAIMANT:		Paul Wrench

RESPONDENTS:	1.	The Africa Trusts
2.	Mr Shane McBreen
3.	Africaid
4.	African Orphans Trust
5.	African Self-Help Trust	

			 
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the respondents’ application for a review of the tribunal’s decision issued to the parties on 7 July 2005 is granted and the content of the decision as issued is confirmed by the tribunal save that the draft letter annexed thereto is deleted from the decision and in place thereof is substituted the draft letter annexed to this review decision. 

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Mr N Keery, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Desmond J Doherty & Co., Solicitors.

The respondents were represented by Mr Shane McBreen (the second-named respondent).

REASONS

1.	The decision in this matter was promulgated by the tribunal on 7 July 2005 following a hearing of the case which took place on 30 June 2005.  On the hearing date, the tribunal determined all issues save for an application for costs made on the part of the claimant, in respect of which the tribunal adjourned the matter and fixed same for hearing on 15 August 2005.  At the original hearing, the respondents were unrepresented and did not appear.

2.	After the decision had been issued to the respective parties, the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal (“the Office of Tribunals”)  received a letter dated 8 August 2005 signed by Mr McBreen on behalf of himself and the other respondents.  That letter referred, inter alia, to the draft letter of reference which was annexed to the tribunal’s decision and contended that the annexure to the tribunal’s decision was not the reference letter that had been agreed in draft form between the parties.

3.	At the outset of the hearing on 15 August 2005, Mr McBreen further clarified his position on behalf of himself and the respondents concerning that point.  Although Mr McBreen in his letter of 8 August 2005 had not expressly asked that the tribunal review its decision, having heard from Mr McBreen and the claimant’s representative, the tribunal felt it appropriate to treat the said letter of 8 August 2005 as being an application for a review of the tribunal’s decision promulgated on 7 July 2005 insofar as that decision had annexed to it a draft letter which was contended not to reflect a letter stated to have been agreed previously between the respective parties to this matter.

4.	The tribunal heard from the claimant’s representative who confirmed that he was in accord with Mr McBreen and the respective representatives of the parties to the matter indicated mutual agreement before the tribunal that if an application for review was permitted to proceed the parties were in agreement that a different draft letter be substituted for that annexed to the tribunal’s decision as reflecting what had actually been agreed between the parties on a prior occasion.  The claimant’s representative thus indicated that he had no objection to the respondents’ application for a review.

5.	Accordingly, the tribunal treated the said letter of 8 August 2005 to the Office of Tribunals for Mr McBreen as being an application for review on foot of Rule 34 of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure contained in Schedule 1 to the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005.  The tribunal heard the application on the basis of the following provision of Rule 34, that is to say, Rule 34(3)(e), that the interests of justice required such a review.

6.	Rule 35 of the said Rules of Procedure provides that an application under Rule 34 must be made to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal within 14 days of the date on which the decision was sent to the parties.  The decision was sent to the parties by the Office of Tribunals on 7 July 2005.  However, the tribunal heard from Mr McBreen that he had been out of the country for some time and that he did not receive a copy of the tribunal’s decision until a short time before he despatched the said letter of 8 August 2005 to the Office of Tribunals.  Accordingly, taking account of that fact and also of the claimant’s representative’s attitude to the application for review, the tribunal felt it appropriate to extend the time limit for the application as the tribunal felt that it was just and equitable to do so, that being permitted under the provisions of Rule 35.  The tribunal therefore determines that the said time limit be extended to the date of receipt of the said letter of 8 August 2005 by the Office of Tribunals.  The tribunal heard further from both parties and noted in particular the concession made on the part of the claimant’s representative that the said letter annexed to the tribunal’s 

decision promulgated on 7 July 2005 could not properly be taken to have been the text of a draft letter of reference agreed between the parties but, in place of this, ought properly to be a substituted different draft letter, that being the draft letter annexed to this decision.

7.	Taking account of everything, the tribunal unanimously grants the application for review on the part of the respondents and the tribunal’s decision as promulgated on 7 July 2005 is confirmed in its entirety save that in place of the draft letter annexed to the decision shall be substituted the draft letter of reference annexed to this decision upon application for a review.  No further Order is made in respect of this application for review.

 

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	15 August 2005, Londonderry.	

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: