O'Hare v Queen's University Belfast

CASE REFS: 190/01 FET;

1746/01

CLAIMANT: Ms M M T O'Hare

RESPONDENTS: 1. Queen's University of Belfast

The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the respondents' application is allowed in part in so far as paragraph 6(6) (a) to (j) of the original decision is clarified. Otherwise the Tribunal confirms its decision.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman: Mr B Greene

Panel Member: Mrs S Butcher

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Mr M Potter, of counsel, instructed by Savage & Company, Solicitors.

The respondents were represented by Mr F O'Reilly, of counsel, instructed by Elliott Duffy & Garrett, Solicitors.

On 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31 January; 1, 2, 3 February; 10, 13, 15, 16 March; and 4, 6, 7, 10 April; 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30 June; 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30 August; 18 September 2006 a claim for unfair dismissal, breach of contract and discrimination on the grounds of sex and religious belief or political opinion against the respondents was heard.

The Tribunal determined that the claimant had suffered discrimination on the grounds of her sex and religion, her contract of employment had been breached and that she had been unfairly constructively dismissed by the respondents.

The Tribunal's decision was issued on 31 August 2007.

By letters of 13 and 14 September 2007 the respondents requested a review of the Tribunal's decision on the grounds that the decision was made as a result of an administrative error; and/or that the interests of justice required such a review.

Mr J Crockett, a panel member in the original hearing, had become seriously ill. The parties agreed that the review should be heard before the remaining two panel members.

Accordingly the respondents' application for a review of the Tribunal's decision was listed for hearing on 14 February 2008.

Mr O'Reilly stated to the Tribunal that the only ground for seeking a review of the Tribunal's decision, upon which the respondents were relying, was that the interests of justice require such a review (Regulation 30(3)(e), The Fair Employment Tribunal (Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005).

In support of the respondents' application for a review Mr O'Reilly stated:-

Mr Potter, for the claimant, asserted:-

Mr Potter applied for costs against the respondents for 1¾ hours amounting to £300 + VAT for making submissions on matters which are in reality matters for the Court of Appeal.

Applications for a review where the only ground relied on is the interests of justice fall into two broad categories : those in which there has been a 'procedural mishap' (see Trimble v Supertravel Ltd [1982] IRLR 451 at 453 ) and those in which the tribunal's decision has been undermined by events occurring shortly thereafter ( Harvey T [1139] ).

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 14 February 2008, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: