Deman vs Association of University,Duncan Mercer,Richard Jay,Max Goldstrom,Paul Hudson
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 21 March 2008 |
| Respondent | Duncan Mercer,Richard Jay,Max Goldstrom,Paul Hudson,Association of University |
| Docket Number | 00218/96FET |
| Court | Fair Employment Tribunal (NI) |
FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
CASE REFS: 00218/96 FET
01789/96 SD
CLAIMANT: Mr Suresh Deman
RESPONDENTS: 1. Association of University Teachers and Officers at Queen’s University
- Duncan Mercer
- Richard Jay
- Max Goldstrom
- Paul Hudson
DECISION
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the claimant’s claims of unlawful discrimination, whether on the grounds of sex, religious belief, political opinion and/or by way of victimisation are dismissed against all respondents.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mr S A Crothers
Members: Mrs McCormick
Mr Gourley
Appearances:
The claimant was represented during part of the hearing by Mr Sharma. During the remainder of the hearing he represented himself and was assisted by Mr Graham.
The respondents were represented by Mr Francis O’Reilly, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Francis Hanna & Company, Solicitors.
- The claimant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the grounds of sex, religion and political opinion. The claimant also alleged victimisation. The respondents denied all of the allegations and asserted that the claimant’s claims were out of time. The claimant’s claims were presented to the Tribunal on 19 April 1996. The proceedings were the subject of a number of interlocutory hearings and Case Management Discussions. The cases were initially listed for a pre-hearing review on 3-4 October 2005 to consider four preliminary issues. In a Case Management Discussion on 27 September 2005 the pre-hearing review was removed from the list in order for the case to be re-listed for a full hearing. After further Case Management Discussions on 18 May 2006 and 4 September 2006 a final Case Management Discussion was held on 20 March 2007 and the cases timetabled for hearing. The issues for the substantive hearing were set out in the record of that Case Management Discussion
The Issues
- The issues before the Tribunal, as amended, were as follows:-
(i) Whether the claimant should be given leave to amend his Originating Applications.
(ii) Whether the letter of 1 May 1996 constituted a valid appearance.
(iii) If not, whether the respondent should be debarred from defending the proceedings.
(iv) Whether the claimant’s claim to the Fair Employment Tribunal in respect of his allegations of sex discrimination, religious discrimination, political discrimination and victimisation were presented within the time limits provided (to include the time limit for a continuing act).
(v) If not, whether it is just and equitable for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to extend time to allow the applications to be presented.
(vi) Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction in the context of these applications to consider the allegations against the respondent, Mr Mercer, having regard to the capacity in which he was acting at the time and the fact that the claimant had issued separate proceedings concerning the subject matter of these allegations.
(vii) Whether the claimant was discriminated against as alleged on the grounds of his sex.
(viii) Whether the claimant was discriminated against, as alleged on the grounds of religious belief, and/or political opinion.
(ix) Whether the claimant was victimised.
(x) If the answer to either question (v) or (vi) is yes, whether the claimant is entitled to any award.
The written submissions in relation to the above issues are appended to this decision. The Tribunal also took into account brief oral submissions made by both parties on 25 January 2008, and relevant authorities referred to.
Strike Out Application
3. In his written submissions to the Tribunal, the respondents’ Counsel invited the Tribunal to exercise its powers under Rule 18(7)(c) of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 and Rule 17(7)(c) of the Fair Employment Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005, to strike out the claims of the claimant on the grounds that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the claimant had been scandalous, unreasonable and vexatious. In making such an application the respondents’ Counsel invited the Tribunal to have regard to its detailed notes of the evidence and various events that occurred during the hearing. He referred to the manner in which the claimant, on occasions, addressed the Tribunal and the accusations of impropriety he made against the Tribunal and against the Chairman in particular and also against Counsel for the respondents. In his further submissions, Counsel, Mr O’Reilly, also referred to what he regarded as verbal abuse by the claimant of his initial representative, Mr Sharma, and his subsequent friend, Mr Graham. Furthermore, Counsel referred to a written statement produced by the claimant at the outset of the hearing which alleged that he did not consider that he would receive a fair hearing. Taking all of these matters into account, Counsel submitted that even at the submission stage, the claims of the claimant should be struck out for the reasons set out above. The Tribunal considers it appropriate to deal with this submission at the outset of its decision. The Tribunal had regard to Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law (“Harvey”) Volume 5 at T647ff and in particular to paragraph 653 where, referring to Burton J’s judgement in Bolch –v- Chipman 2004 IRLR 140 EAT, and taking account of the judgements in Bennett –v- London Borough of Southwark 2002 EWCA Civ 223 and De Keyser Ltd –v- Wilson 2001 IRLR 324 EAT, four matters are to be addressed as follows:-
(1) There must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial