THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	796/07

CLAIMANT:			Ellen Lambe

RESPONDENT:		Four Seasons Healthcare

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that in view of the claimant’s repeated failure to engage in these proceedings, the tribunal accedes to the respondent’s application to have the entire claim struck out because it has not been actively pursued. The respondent’s application for a preparation time order is refused.

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone):		Mr T Browne

Appearances:
The claimant did not appear and was not represented, her previous solicitor having come off record
The respondent was represented by Mr Atcheson, barrister-at-Law, instructed by Murphys, Solicitors.

BACKGROUND

1.	The claimant has repeatedly failed to provide her solicitors with any instructions in this case.  Her first solicitors came off record because she had failed to provide them with instructions to enable them to prepare to meet the original challenge to the validity of her claim, based upon the time-limits for submission of her claim.

2.	Her second solicitors were ordered by the tribunal to pay a Wasted Costs Order because they failed to attend a pre-hearing review to resolve the timeliness issue.  They also came off record because they could not obtain any instructions from their client.
3.	At the present hearing, convened on the initiative of the Chairman, the claimant, whilst notified in writing, failed to attend, nor was she represented, and did not make contact with the Tribunal’s Office.

4.	It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the claim should be struck out because it had not been actively pursued.  I consider that the claimant has failed in her responsibility to assist the tribunal in its overriding objective, defined in Regulation 3 of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 (‘the 2005 Regulations’), to deal with cases justly in ensuring that cases are dealt with expeditiously and fairly and saving expense.   She has, in my opinion, by her failure to engage with her solicitors, caused delay whereby the proceedings have been unnecessarily protracted, also causing the respondent to incur additional expense. 

5.	I therefore accede to the respondent’s application and order that the claim be dismissed in accordance with Rule 18(7)(d) of the 2005 Regulations.

6.	The respondent also made an application for a Preparation Time Order, but I do not consider that it is appropriate to make such an order.  The respondent received a Wasted Costs Order in its favour against the claimant’s last set of solicitors because of their failure to attend the last pre-hearing review.  They have therefore been reimbursed for that hearing; the present hearing is the natural next step, and, whilst the claimant has not engaged in it, I do not consider that her failure to do so can properly construed as falling within the provisions of Rule 44(1) of the 2005 Regulations, as this was not a case where the hearing had to be adjourned.  I also have assessed from the case papers that the claimant does not seem to me to be a person who would be in a position to pay any such order, which assessment may be taken into account by virtue of Rule 45(3) of the 2005 Regulations. 

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	7 March 2008, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: