[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> McLaughlin v Western Education and Library Board [2006] NIIT 2688_02 (14 March 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2006/2688_02.html Cite as: [2006] NIIT 2688_2, [2006] NIIT 2688_02

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

 


THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 2688/02

CLAIMANT: Liam McLaughlin

RESPONDENT: Western Education and Library Board

DECISION

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the application for costs by the respondent against the claimant is dismissed.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Mrs Cooper

Members: Mr Hampton

Mr O'Neill

Appearances:

The claimant did not attend the hearing for costs but presented a written submission.

The respondent was represented by Mr A Colmer, Barrister at Law, instructed by Mr M Brown chief legal adviser to the Education and Library Board's legal service.

1. This application by the respondent for costs against the claimant is decided under the Industrial Tribunal's (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004 (the 2004 Rules) as the proceedings were initiated prior to 3 April 2005.
2. The issue before the tribunal was whether, having considered the provisions of Article 14 of the 2004 Rules, the claimant had brought or conducted the proceedings vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably or that the proceedings were misconceived.
3. The respondent's application to the tribunal was that in pursuing these proceedings the claimant has acted unreasonably and that the fact that the claimant genuinely believed in the case was not relevant as the test was one of an objective standard of reasonableness. The respondent relied on the findings of the tribunal in it's decision of 11 August 2005 which rejected the claimant's allegations in their entirety. The tribunal had also found that the claimant "made every attempt to elaborate on his case by denying matters which he had previously accepted and he was obstructive in his failure to provide details of his allegations to the respondent". The respondent referred to this finding of the tribunal and also cited four issues in summary which were stated to establish that the claimant had acted unreasonably in bringing the proceedings. These were:

(i) none of the claimant's complaints was upheld. Rather more often than not the tribunal found them to be "of no merit" or "not relevant",

(ii) the respondent acted sympathetically and reasonably in dealing with the claimant,

(iii) the claimant was unco-operative and obstructive,

(iv) the claimant's prosecution of this clearly and unequivocally unmeritorious claim necessitated a lengthy and costly hearing which (a) interfered with the respondent's provision of its library services and (b) will deplete the respondents already stretched resources.

4. The claimant's written submission reiterated much of the evidence considered by the tribunal and further argued that had the respondent considered the application to be unmeritorious a request should have been made for a pre-hearing review. The tribunal noted that the respondent had written to the claimant on the 18 July 2003 making an offer of settlement in the case and indicating that should this offer not be accepted an application would be made for an order for costs.
5. The tribunal determined this application for costs having considered both the oral and written representations of the respondent and the written representations of the claimant who did not attend the hearing due to ill health. In particular the tribunal noted that an offer of settlement was rejected by the claimant prior to the hearing. The tribunal also considered the claimant's argument that costs should not be awarded where a respondent has failed to request a pre-hearing review. While taking both these factors into account the tribunal did not find that on their own either of them was determinative as to whether costs should or should not be awarded.
6. The tribunal found that the claimant genuinely believed that he had been harassed and persecuted by staff from the respondent. The claimant did give evidence of matters which he considered established this treatment of him. The allegations made were serious and required detailed evidence from the respondent's witnesses to refute them. The tribunal found against the claimant on all points.
7. However having reviewed the arguments raised in this regard the tribunal also considered the contents of a confidential medical report from Dr Michael Curran Consultant Psychiatrist dated September 2001. This report set out details of the claimant's psychiatric history since December 1980. The tribunal noted that the report stated that the claimant had "problematic inter-personal relationships when working for WELB leading to the presentation of stress related symptoms and more recently sustained depressed affect". The report went on to detail some of the matters raised by the claimant at the tribunal hearing. While the consultant did not consider the prescription of psychoactive medication or antidepressants to be particularly beneficial, he did state that he doubted that there would be any change in the claimant's mental state until all his concerns had been concluded.
8. The tribunal found that this report was of particular significance in our consideration of this case. We accepted that there is an issue as to whether the claimant was reasonable in his conduct of the case. We accepted that the claimant's belief in his harassment by staff was not sufficient to absolve him from responsibility and that the issue of reasonableness should be considered objectively. The tribunal found that the claimant did refer to detailed events in which he considered staff had treated him unfavourably. The tribunal found that the claimant's mental health had been significantly affected by his perception of these events. The tribunal noted the decision in the case of Montgomery V Western Education and Library Board and Others [Case Ref No 759/03]. The tribunal were satisfied that the case before us differed from Montgomery because of the claimant's genuine and ongoing psychiatric condition. In accordance with Rule 14(1) of the 2004 Rules the tribunal did consider making an award of costs against the claimant but in the light of his ongoing psychiatric condition did not find that it was appropriate to do so. The tribunal made this finding in the light of the particular circumstances of this case, namely the claimant's psychiatric condition alone. For this reason the decision to award costs against the claimant is dismissed.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 14 March 2006, Londonderry.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: