McGeown vs HM Revenue & Customs
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 17 October 2013 |
| Respondent | HM Revenue & Customs |
| Docket Number | 00076/12FET |
| Court | Fair Employment Tribunal (NI) |
FAIR EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
CASE REF: 76/12FET
1188/12
CLAIMANT: Thomas McGeown
RESPONDENT: HM Revenue & Customs
DECISION ON A PRE HEARING REVIEW
The claimant’s claim which contained complaints of unlawful discrimination on the ground of religious belief and unfair dismissal is struck out because he has failed to actively pursue it.
Constitution of Tribunal:
President (sitting alone): Miss E McBride
Appearances:
The claimant did not attend the Hearing and was not represented.
The respondent was represented by Mrs M McKenna, Solicitor, of the Crown Solicitor’s Office.
1. The issues to be determined at the Pre Hearing Review were:-
(i) Whether the claimant has failed to actively pursue his claim.
(ii) If so, whether the claimant’s claim should be struck out for failing to actively pursue it.
(iii) Whether the claimant has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Orders in respect of Discovery, Additional Information and Witness Statements, and, if so, whether the respondent can receive a fair Hearing.
(iv) If not, whether the claimant’s claim should be struck out for failing to comply with the Tribunal’s Orders.
(v) If the claimant’s claim is not struck out, whether the proceedings should be stayed for the reasons set out by the claimant in his e-mails of 24 May 2013 and 27 May 2013.
2. On 27 June 2012 the claimant presented a claim containing complaints of unlawful discrimination on the ground of his religion and unfair dismissal.
3. On 7 August 2012 the respondent presented a response contending that the claimant’s dismissal was fair and denying that the respondent had discriminated against the claimant as alleged or at all.
4. On 4 September 2012 the President directed that both claims would be heard and determined by the Fair Employment Tribunal.
5. By correspondence dated 18 September 2012 the parties were notified that a Case Management Discussion would take place on 9 October 2012 to identify the issues to be determined by the Tribunal, to make appropriate Case Management Orders and to list the case for Hearing within the period December 2012 to February 2013.
6. By correspondence dated 5 October 2012, the claimant sought a postponement of the Case Management Discussion because he was awaiting advice from his trade union. The claimant informed the Tribunal that his mother had been suffering from a debilitating illness for a protracted period of time, that he had been providing care for her, and that he was therefore extremely anxious to press on with his case, as it was an unwelcome intrusion into his caring responsibilities, but that he did not wish to ignore any advice from his trade union. The respondent objected to the claimant’s postponement application. The parties were informed that a Chairman of the Tribunal had granted a four week adjournment but had made it clear that he expected no further adjournments of the case. By correspondence dated 10 October 2012 the claimant e-mailed the Tribunal to assure the Chairman that he was extremely anxious to progress his case against the respondent subject to two considerations:-
(1) firstly and most importantly his mother’s deteriorating health which he found very demanding and extremely stressful to deal with and which he stated would take precedence over everything else; and
(2) that he was awaiting advice from his trade union.
Among other things the claimant also informed the Tribunal that he would be inviting the leadership of two political parties to monitor the performance of the Tribunals and to either publicly endorse or condemn the Tribunal Services as compromised against his community based on their previous performance and their handling of his case and that in light of his mother’s illness he did not “really care what the Tribunal Chairman states regarding further adjournments.”
The first Case Management Discussion – 25 February 2013
7. The first Case Management Discussion was relisted and proceeded before the President on 25 February 2013. The claimant attended in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Sands, Barrister-at-Law. To progress the case to Hearing the President went through the draft list of issues, which had been prepared by the respondent, with the parties and ordered that a final list of issues was to be lodged with the Tribunal by 15 March 2013. This was to give the claimant the opportunity to obtain advice from his trade union in relation to them.
The respondent undertook to provide discovery of its documents to the claimant by 1 March 2013 and the President made the following Orders:-
(i) the claimant was ordered to notify the respondent’s representative by 22 March 2013 if he required any further documents relating to his claim;
(ii) the respondent was ordered to serve any request for Additional Information on the claimant by 4 March 2013;
(iii) the claimant was ordered to respond to any request for Additional Information from the respondent by 22 March 2013;
(iv) the claimant and any witness he wished to call were ordered to provide a witness statement to the respondent’s representative by 12 April 2013;
(v) the respondent and any witness it wished to call were ordered to provide a witness statement to the claimant by 10 May 2013;
(vi) the parties were ordered to agree and provide an index of relevant documents and a bundle of relevant documents to the Tribunal by 13 May 2013 and 6 June 2013 respectively;
(vii) the case was listed for Hearing from 10 to 14 June 2013, the parties having agreed to those dates.
The record of that first Case Management Discussion which contained the above undertaking and Orders was issued to the parties on 27 February 2013. It also contained a Notice which, among other things, informed the parties that failure to comply with any of the Tribunal’s Orders could result in the claim, or the response being struck out.
The second Case Management Discussion – 30 April 2013
8. A second Case Management Discussion was arranged at the request of both parties and took place on 30 April 2013. That was because the respondent had not provided its discovery within the agreed time limit and because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal’s Orders. The claimant attended in person and the respondent was represented by Mrs McKenna, solicitor.
8.1 Issues
The final list of issues had not been lodged as ordered because the claimant had not agreed it. The claimant stated that was because he had ongoing issues with his trade union and had not yet received advice in respect of the issues from them. As the case was listed for Hearing from 10 to 14 June 2013 the President went through the issues with the claimant and Mrs McKenna and the parties were able to agree the legal issues and the factual issues with some amendments.
8.2 Discovery
The respondent had delayed sending its documents to the claimant until 8 March 2013 and the claimant did not receive or collect them from Royal Mail until 20 March 2013. The claimant indicated that he had received e-mails as part of a freedom of information request which he wished to have included in the bundle of documents for the Hearing. The President therefore ordered the claimant to provide discovery of those e-mails to Mrs McKenna by 7 May 2013.
8.3 Additional Information
The respondent had sent a notice requesting Additional Information to the claimant within the time limit ordered by the President. The claimant had failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Order that he respond to the respondent’s Notice for Additional Information by 22 March 2013. Given the proximity of the Hearing and the fact that the claimant was unrepresented, the President went through the Order for Additional Information with the claimant and Mrs McKenna. In this way the claimant was able to provide some of the additional information in open tribunal and the President extended the time limit for the claimant to provide the outstanding information to the respondent to 7 May 2013.
8.4 Witness Statements
The claimant had been ordered to provide his witness statements to the respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial