THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	416/06

CLAIMANT:		Kieran Joseph Martin Harkin

RESPONDENT:		Kevin Watkins T/A Watkins Scaffolding

Constitution of Tribunal:
Vice President (sitting alone):	Mrs M Price

Appearances:
The claimant did not appear, nor was he represented but written submissions  were presented.
The respondent was represented by Mr Hanson, Solicitor, of William J Hasson, Solicitors.

DECISION ON AN APPLICATION TO REVIEW

1.	The claimant presented a claim of unfair dismissal which was accepted and a response was presented to that claim of unfair dismissal.  A further claim was presented on 6 April 2006 and the response was due to be entered by 10 May 2006.  No response was entered and a default judgment was made on 19 May 2006 which found that the claimant’s claim in respect of notice pay and holiday pay were well-founded.  No award was made.

2.	A letter was received from the respondent’s solicitor on 24 May 2006 enclosing a response to the claims.  

3.	Mr Hasson stated that his client had believed that the unfair dismissal claim covered all the claims and he stated the respondent did not understand that there were two separate applications.  He considered that all the claims arose out of the dismissal of the claimant.

4.	The respondent’s solicitor claimed that the original failure to lodge the response was as a result of an administrative error on behalf of the respondent and not out of any deliberate intention not to defend the claim.  He also stated that in the interests of justice the respondent had a valid defence to the claim and that once the respondent had gone to his solicitor the response and application to review had been lodged quickly there afterwards.

5.	Under Rule 33 of the Industrial Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 I am satisfied that the application for a review did enclose a response to the claim and an application was made for extending the time to present the response.  I am satisfied that reasons have been given for the delay in presenting the response at an earlier time, although I accept Mr Canavan’s written submission that the respondent’s solicitor was contacted about the failure to pay notice and holiday pay long before the response was given to the tribunal.  I am satisfied that the default judgment should be revoked because the respondent has a reasonable prospect of successfully responding to the claim and I accept the reason given for the response not having been presented within the applicable time limit.  The response will now be copied to the claimant’s solicitor and the case proceed to be listed.

Vice President:

Date and place of hearing:	24 August 2006, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: