BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Thomas v Nick Griffin as representative... [2012] NIIT 00771_11IT (14 March 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2012/00771_11IT.html Cite as: [2012] NIIT 00771_11IT, [2012] NIIT 771_11IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 771/11
CLAIMANT: Marion Thomas
RESPONDENT: Nick Griffin as representative of the British National Party
DECISION ON COSTS
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the application for costs in respect of the Case Management Discussion on 20 October 2011 is refused.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Vice President (sitting alone): Mr N Kelly
Appearances:
The claimant submitted written representations through John McKee & Sons, Solicitors.
The respondent submitted written representations through Patrick Harrington, of Solidarity (Free Representation) Unit.
1. The Case Management Discussion on 20 October 2011 was to deal with the respondent’s application for a postponement of the substantive hearing from a one day listing on 25 October 2011.
2. The claimant had objected to that application.
3. There was clearly delay on the part of the respondent in making his application for a postponement and for a three day hearing.
4. However, it should have been apparent to the claimant that the claim and the associated claim from Mr Kernaghan would take considerably longer than one day to resolve. The costs of the Case Management Discussion would have been avoided if the claimant had acknowledged that a one day hearing would not have been sufficient and had acted accordingly.
5. This does not appear to be an appropriate case for an award of costs against either party. The wasted costs in respect of the Case Management Discussion are equally attributable to both parties.
Vice President:
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
