THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:	2194/16

CLAIMANT:			Roberta Young	

RESPONDENTS:		1.	John McKee Solicitors	
				2.	Leonard Edgar

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
By agreement of the parties the second bullet point in the statement of additional information provided to the respondent on 2 March, is removed from that document.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Employment Judge (sitting alone):	Employment Judge Murray	

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by her husband Mr W Young.

The respondents were represented by Mr B Mulqueen, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by John McKee Solicitors.

REASONS

1.	A CMD was arranged for 4 May in order to deal with the claimant’s application to revoke an Order for disclosure of documentation made on 23 February 2017.  The respondents had also raised in correspondence with the claimant’s side the issue of whether or not a paragraph in the replies to Additional Information should be removed on grounds of relevance.  Mr Young stated that he was aware of the respondents’ application and consented to that matter being dealt with as a PHR.  Prior to giving his consent to the conversion of part of the CMD into a PHR, I explained that a PHR could be arranged on another date if Mr Young required time to prepare.  Mr Young indicated that he was content to proceed and was given some time after the CMD to consider his response to the respondents’ application.  

2.	A PHR took place on 2 March 2017 before the Vice-President and the decision given orally on that morning was that two paragraphs in the claimant’s witness statement should be removed on grounds that they were inadmissible in evidence.  

3.	Immediately after the PHR hearing the claimant hand delivered replies to additional information.  The replies related to an Order made at the CMD on 23 February 2017 whereby the claimant was directed to provide by 2 March 2017 particulars of the allegations of harassment.  It was Mr Young’s position that the replies were drafted before the PHR on 2 March 2017 and this was his explanation for the second bullet point essentially covering the same ground as the two paragraphs which were ruled inadmissible by the Vice-President.  

4.	Mr Young stated that he consented to the removal of that paragraph from the replies to the Notice for Additional Information.  Mr Young’s contention was that the whole document was irrelevant to the case and should therefore be excluded.  I explained that the document was relevant to the case and that the document without  the paragraph at the second bullet point should be included in the bundle of documents.  Mr Mulqueen confirmed that he intended to make use of the replies in cross-examination in the hearing.

5.	Mr Young also queried the relevance of the document particularly in view of the fact that the parties had already agreed an index to the bundle of documents which is to be provided to the tribunal by 23 May 2017.  I explained that the revised response to the Notice for Additional Information must be provided to the respondent and it will form part of the bundle of documents for the hearing.  Mr Young indicated that he understood the position.

6.	Mr Young also agreed that the respondents’ Equal Opportunities policy could be included in the bundle of documents.

Employment Judge:

Date and place of hearing:  4 May 2017, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: