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 >> Watt v Southern Health & Social care ... [2013] NIIT 01326_13IT (02 September 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2013/1326_13IT.html Cite as: [2013] NIIT 01326_13IT, [2013] NIIT 1326_13IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1326/13
CLAIMANT: Orla Watt
RESPONDENTS: 1. Southern Health & Social Care Trust
2. Calvin Spence
3. Geraldine Maguire
4. Francesca Leyden
5. Bernie McGibben
6. Anne Ross
7. Fiona Wright
8. Lindsay McIlwrath
9. Siobhan Hynds
10. Roisin Toner
11. Helen Walker
DECISION
The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant’s application for interim relief pending the determination of her complaint of unfair dismissal be refused.
At the conclusion of the hearing I also gave the case-management directions set out at Paragraphs 5 – 8 below.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr D Buchanan
Appearances:
The claimant appeared in person and was not represented.
The respondent was represented by Ms A Finnegan, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Directorate of Legal Services.
1. The claimant, who alleges that she was unfairly dismissed, made an application for interim relief. The basis of her application was that she had been dismissed for making a protected disclosure.
2. Both the claimant and the respondents had set out their respective cases in detail in the pleadings, and by agreement, the matter proceeded by way of submissions. In the event it was not necessary for me to call on the respondents’ representative.
3. In determining an application for interim relief, it is not my function to decide the substantive case. In order to succeed in such an application the claimant must show that it is likely that, in determining the complaint to which the application relates, the tribunal will find that the reason (or principal reason) for the dismissal is one of the specified reasons, in this case the making of a protected disclosure (see : Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, Article 164, as amended). In Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068, at p1074, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, considering an earlier, identical, provision in Great Britain, stated that a tribunal should ask itself whether the claimant has established that she had a ‘pretty good’ chance of succeeding in her final application to the tribunal. While the tribunal does not have to be satisfied that the claimant will succeed at trial, there is nonetheless a high burden of proof cast upon her.
4(1) There is a substantial dispute on the facts of the case, with virtually every allegation being made by the claimant being denied by the respondents, and in these circumstances I am not persuaded that the claimant can show that she is likely to succeed at the eventual hearing of the substantive claim before a full tribunal.
(ii) I therefore refuse the application for interim relief. I again emphasise that nothing I have said here is intended to affect the final outcome of that claim, nor am I expressing any view on its merits. The claim will now proceed to a full hearing and I give the following case-management directions in respect of it.
5. Issues
(i) The respondents’ solicitor will provide the claimant with a brief statement of issues within seven days;
(ii) she will provide any comments to the respondents’ solicitor within a further period of seven days; and
(iii) the final list of issues will be submitted to the Office of the Tribunals by 18 September 2013.
6. Interlocutory matters
Extensive documentation has been provided in relation to the interim relief application.
Any party requiring any further information or documentation should request it of the other party by 18 September 2013.
7. Preliminary issues
There are no preliminary issues requiring a separate pre-hearing review.
8. Orders
In accordance with Rule 10(1) of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005, I make the following orders, by consent:-
(i) Evidence
Evidence-in-chief will be given orally. Witness statements will not be used.
(ii) Schedule of Loss
The claimant must provide to the respondents’ representative a schedule of all financial loss claimed by the claimant, setting out in particular the nature and amount of any such loss claimed and how that sum is made up, by 5.00 pm on 18 September 2013.
(iii) Bundles
Each party will submit three bundles of all relevant documents on which the party intends to rely by 16 October 2013. One further set of the bundle must be brought to the Office of the Tribunals not later than 9.30 am on the first day of the hearing:-
(a) the bundle must contain only those documents which are necessary for the tribunal to hear and determine the claim. The bundle is not meant to contain all documentation which has been disclosed between the parties, documents should appear only once in the bundle;
(b) the bundle must contain a detailed index and each page in the bundle must be clearly and consecutively numbered;
(c) each document must appear in chronological sequence;
(d) the bundle may not, without the consent of the tribunal, contain more than 200 pages.
(iv) Date of Hearing
The hearing will be from-
23 – 25 October 2013
Parties and their representatives should note that if any matters arise which require a further direction or order by the tribunal, they should immediately notify the Office of the Tribunals of that matter and attend at 10.00 am on [the first day of hearing] so that such matters can be resolved.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 28 August 2013, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
Notice
1. If any party fails and/or is unable to comply with any of the above Orders, any application arising out of such failure or inability to comply must be made promptly to the tribunal and in accordance with the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005.
2. Failure to comply with any of these Orders may result in a Costs Order or a Preparation Time Order or a Wasted Costs Order or an Order that the whole or part of the claim, or as the case may be, the response may be struck out and, where appropriate, the respondent may be debarred from responding to the claim altogether.
3. Under Article 9(4) of the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement to grant discovery and inspection of documents under Rule 10(2)(d) of the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005 shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding Level 3 on the standard scale - £1,000 at 3 September 2007, but subject to alteration from time to time.
4. A party may apply to the tribunal to vary or revoke any of the above Orders in accordance with the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2005.
