THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:  01364/08

CLAIMANT:			Olivia Lavery

RESPONDENTS:		1.  Robert Ferguson 
				2.  Warehouse Direct (Discount Stores) Ltd

DECISION ON AN APPLICTION FOR REVIEW
I hereby dismiss the first respondent’s application for a review.  

Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (Sitting Alone):	Mr B Greene

Appearances:
The claimant was represented by her husband Mr Lavery
The first respondent was represented by Mr Barry Mulqueen, of counsel, instructed by Toal & Heron, Solicitors.  The second respondent was not in attendance nor represented as it had not been invited to attend.

REASONS

 1.	I dismiss the application for a review on behalf of the first respondent.  In so doing I had regard to the following matters:-

	(i)	on 18 September 2008 the claimant lodged a claim for a redundancy payment, holiday pay, and notice pay against Robert Ferguson, the first respondent.  The second respondent was added to the proceedings on 3 December 2008.  

	(ii)	A response was due by the first respondent by 12 November 2008 and from the second respondent by 7 January 2009.  

	(iii)	A letter dated 10 December 2008 and sent by the Office of the Tribunals to the first respondent was returned to the Office of the Tribunals on 13 February 2009 with a handwritten note on it which stated that the first respondent was employed by the second respondent from 1 April 2007 to 30 September 2008 and no longer employed by it and the claimant was employed by the second respondent.  This was treated as a response.  

		The response was subsequently rejected as being late.

	(iv)	On 16 March 2009 the solicitors on behalf of the first respondent sought a review of the decision to reject his response on the grounds of the interests of justice required such a review.  

	(v)	A review hearing was listed for 5 May 2009.  

	(vi)	At the review hearing on 5 May 2009 counsel for the first respondent indicated that the first respondent was not the claimant’s employer.  He further indicated he was reluctant to speak to the claimant as she was unrepresented but wished to bring to her attention and the tribunal that if the first respondent was successful in having his response entered and should the claimant not succeed against the first respondent they would be seeking costs against the claimant.

	(vii)	Some time was given to the parties to discuss this matter and when they returned to the tribunal the claimant formally withdrew her claim against the first named respondent.  Accordingly, the first named respondent is dismissed from these proceedings.

	(viii)	As the first respondent is no longer party to these proceedings then the review application becomes a nullity and it also is dismissed.

	(ix)	This matter will proceed against Warehouse Direct (Discount Stores) Ltd.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing:	5 May 2009, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: