THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:   1752/16

CLAIMANT:			Anne Marie McCarron

RESPONDENTS:		1.	Board of Governors St Colm’s High School
				2.	Council for Catholic Maintained Schools 

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that the claims are struck-out under Rule 18(7) of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure listed in Schedule 1 to the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 on the ground that the claims have not been actively pursued.  

Constitution of Tribunal:
Vice President (sitting alone):		Mr N Kelly
Appearances:
The claimant did not appear nor was she represented.
The respondents were represented by Ms L McManus, Solicitor, of Napier & Sons, Solicitors.

1.	This is a claim of alleged unfair dismissal, alleged disability-related discrimination and alleged failure to pay holiday pay.  

2.	The claimant was a teacher.  Concerns had been raised about her teaching.  Periods of training and then of suspension followed.  Ultimately she was dismissed.  

3.	The first Case Management Discussion was heard on 25 October 2016.  At that point the claimant had been represented by Cleaver Fulton Rankin, Solicitors.  They informed the Case Management Discussion that they wished to get medical reports in relation to the claimant’s ability to give instructions.  Orders were given in relation to discovery from the respondents only at that stage and the matter was re-listed for a further Case Management Discussion to take place on 13 January 2017.  

4.	On 20 December 2016, Cleaver Fulton Rankin wrote to the Office of the Tribunals indicating that they had difficulty contacting the claimant and that, in particular, they could not get authority for the release of her medical records.  They sought a postponement of the Case Management Discussion, which had been listed for 13 January 2017.  

5.	An application for a postponement was refused and the Case Management Discussion proceeded on 13 January 2017.  Mr Simpson of Cleaver Fulton Rankin attended that Case Management Discussion as a matter of courtesy.  He had been unable to contact the claimant, despite having called at her house and having written to her numerous times.  The home address and telephone number held by Mr Simpson and by the tribunal appeared to be correct.  He had been unable to obtain any relevant instructions.  Mr Simpson and Cleaver Fulton Rankin came off record at that point.  

6.	The tribunal listed this matter for a pre-hearing review on 3 March 2017 to determine whether the claims should be struck-out on the grounds that:-

“(i)	the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted by the claimant has been unreasonable; and/or 

(ii)	the claim has not been actively pursued by the claimant; and/or 

(iii)	the tribunal considers that it is no longer possible to have a fair hearing under Rule 26 of these proceedings.”

7.	A copy of the Record of Proceedings of the Case Management Discussion was sent to the claimant at her home address.  That record reminded the claimant of the need for her to notify the Office of the Tribunals if any medical issues meant that the claimant could not participate in this matter.

8.	The claimant did not contact the Office of the Tribunals and did not attend the               pre-hearing review.  

9.	The claimant did not contact the respondents’ solicitor since the first Case Management Discussion.  The respondents’ solicitor has confirmed with both the Labour Relations Agency and with Cleaver Fulton Rankin that the claimant has not consulted either since the second Case Management Discussion.  

10.	The function of this tribunal is to enable the resolution of employment disputes in an efficient and expeditious manner.  The tribunal is aware that where a claimant or a respondent may be disabled it should bear in the mind its responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and its general responsibilities under the overriding objective.  The tribunal also recognises that an order to strike-out a claim is a draconian order and should only be given where absolutely appropriate.  

11.	The file in relation to this matter indicates that there has been a history of                     non-engagement or only partial-engagement on the part of the claimant in the matters relating to the termination of her teaching post.  The file also indicates that the respondents and ultimately the claimant’s own solicitor had concerns about the claimant’s mental health.  

12.	However, the respondents are now facing mounting legal costs and the claimant has totally failed to engage, at any level, with this matter since the first Case Management Discussion.  

13.	I do not conclude that this matter is no longer capable of being resolved in a fair hearing.  Equally, I am reluctant to conclude that the manner in which the claimant has conducted the proceedings has been unreasonable without hearing from her and without further considering these issues concerning mental health.  Nevertheless it is absolutely plain that this claim has not been actively pursued by the claimant for some considerable time and it is equally plain that there is no indication whatsoever that she intends to do so at any stage in the future.

14.	I therefore conclude that the claims brought by the claimant in this matter should be struck-out on the ground that those claims have not been actively pursued by the claimant.  

15.	The claim is therefore struck-out.

Vice President

Date and place of hearing:	3 March 2017, at Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: