THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:  7415/03

CLAIMANT:			James Carson

RESPONDENT:		Chief Constable of the 
Police Service of Northern Ireland

DECISION ON A PRE HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that the previous decision dated 28 October 2008 striking out the claimant’s claim on the ground that he had failed to comply with Orders for Discovery and Additional Information dated 18 August 2008, is revoked.  

Constitution of Tribunal:
President (sitting alone):  Miss Eileen McBride		

Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person.
The respondent was represented by Mrs M McKenna, Solicitor, of the Crown Solicitor’s Office.

The issues to be determined were whether time should be extended for the application of a review of the decision striking out the claimant’s claim and, if so, whether the application should be granted.

1.	On 30 June 2003 the claimant presented a claim alleging breaches of the Working Time Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998.  On 18 August 2008 Orders for Discovery and Additional Information were issued to the claimant to be complied with by 1 September 2008.  

2.	On 23 September 2008 a Notice was issued to the claimant informing him that unless he complied with the Orders for Additional Information and Discovery dated 18 August 2008 by 21 October 2008 or provided written reasons to the tribunal, by that same date, as to why his claim should not be struck out, his claim would be struck out without further consideration of the proceedings and without further notice or hearing.

3.	On 28 October 2008 the claimant’s claim was struck out for failing to comply with the Orders and because he had failed to give any reasons as to why his claim should not be struck out despite having been given the opportunity to do so by Notice dated 23 September 2008.  The decision was issued to the parties on 28 October 2008.  

4.	On 29 July 2009 the claimant sought a review of the decision striking out his claim on the ground that he had not received the documentation referred to above.

5.	This Pre Hearing Review was then arranged to consider whether time should be extended for this application for review of the decision striking out the claim and, if so, whether the application should be granted.

6.	Mrs McKenna indicated that in light of the circumstances she did not object to the review application.  I am satisfied that in light of the claimant’s circumstances he did not receive documentation from the tribunal and that his application for an extension of time in which to review and his review application should both be granted.

7.	Mrs McKenna indicated that it would appear on the papers that an offer of compensation could be made to the claimant.  The claimant agreed to provide notebook entries to Mrs McKenna by 29 October 2010 to enable her to consider whether an offer can be made.  Mrs McKenna indicated that if it is appropriate to make an offer, an offer will be by 5 November 2010.  If an offer is not made to the claimant I directed that the claimant should notify the tribunal by 3 December 2010 whether he wishes to proceed to have his case listed for hearing or whether he wishes to withdraw his claim in which case it will be dismissed.  I gave the claimant until 3 December 2010 to enable him to seek legal advice if he wishes to do so in light of the Catherine Diane Armstrong case of which he indicated he was aware.

______________________________________
E McBride
President

Date and place of hearing:  15 October 2010, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: