Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions

THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

 

CASE REF: 1412/15

 

 

 

CLAIMANT: Andrew George

 

 

RESPONDENT: Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland

 

 

 

PRE-HEARING REVIEW AMENDMENT DECISION

The decision of the tribunal is that the application to amend the claimant form and the claimant's statement is granted in the terms of the attached document.

 

 

Constitution of Tribunal:

Employment Judge (sitting alone): Employment Judge Murray

 

Appearances:

The claimant was represented by Mr R Smyth, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Ms Leonard of Edwards & Company, Solicitors.

The respondent was represented by Mr J Kennedy, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Mr Curry of the Crown Solicitor's Office.

 

Reasons

 

1. A Case Management Discussion (CMD) was listed for 2 November 2017 following a CMD on 21 September 2017 when there was discussion about possible amendments to the claimant's claim. At the CMD on 2 November 2017 both sides agreed that the hearing should proceed by way of a Pre-Hearing Review Amendment Hearing. The substantive hearing is listed for 5 to 11 December 2017.

 

2. I considered the submissions of both sides and delivered the following summary decision at the hearing:

 

"(1) The claimant makes application to amend the claim form and his statement to include the paragraph handed in today, the last line of which the claimant withdrew during this hearing.

 

(2) This hearing was listed as a Case Management Discussion. Both sides agreed to it proceeding as a Pre Hearing Review Amendment Hearing as both sides were prepared to deal with the amendment application at this hearing.

 

(3) I have considered the submissions of both sides, the proposed amendment and the extract from the claimant's statement which was handed in by the claimant's side today. These are summary reasons for my decision on the amendment application.

 

(4) I hereby grant the application to amend the claim form and the claimant's statement in the terms of the document attached to this decision for the following principal reasons.

 

(5) The amendment amounts to further detail by way of a specific example relating to an allegation which has already been made in the claimant's claim namely that representations were not made on his behalf to promote him in ARU when that had happened in HSMU. The allegation is that in 2017
Chief Inspector McCreery and Superintendent Goddard did not make representations to have the claimant promoted in contrast again to the position in HSMU when this was done for someone else. This is therefore both a further allegation of adverse treatment and it could also amount to relevant supporting evidence for the claimant's allegations which are already contained in his existing claims.

 

(6) I reject Mr Kennedy's submission that this amendment of the claim form inevitably means that 28 days must be given to the respondent to provide an amended response form and that the listed case must therefore be adjourned. The authorities are clear that amendment can be granted at any time, even during the hearing or after the hearing, and there is no mandatory period for an amended response to be provided, if at all.

 

(7) I note the lengthy and unfortunate history of this case and I note that both sides are keen to proceed with the hearing which is listed in December in approximately five weeks' time.

 

(8) I also note with concern the following matters:

 

(i) Despite the proposed amendment being provided to the respondent on 12 September 2017 and despite this issue being ventilated before the Vice-President at a CMD on 21 September 2017, no steps were taken by the respondent to request clarification of the claimant's points, if clarification were needed;

 

 

(ii) No steps were taken to establish the availability of any witness, if one is necessary from HSMU, for the hearing;

 

(iii) No steps appear to have been taken to establish whether Chief Inspector McCreery and Superintendent Goddard could deal succinctly with the points made by the claimant or whether more extensive evidence in the form of documents, witnesses or an addendum to each of their statements would be required.

 

(9) Mr Kennedy made the submission that an adjournment would be necessary whether or not the amendment were granted. His submission was that, if the amendment was not granted and a second claim form was lodged by the claimant, the second claim should be consolidated with these current proceedings given the overlap of evidence and witnesses.

 

(10) In the circumstances set out by me in relation to my concerns about the lack of inquiry by the respondent, I do not grant Mr Kennedy's application to adjourn the case. The case will therefore remain listed.

 

(11) I direct that the respondent has 21 days to provide an addendum to Chief Inspector McCreery and Superintendent Goddard's statements and to provide any relevant documentation, if there are any such documents, to the claimant. It will then be open to the respondent to renew its application for an adjournment, if necessary, once those matters are dealt with. At that stage an Employment Judge can be better apprised of any difficulties there might be for the respondent in meeting the case now made by the claimant.

 

3. In my judgment this two-stage approach should meet the concern which Mr Kennedy has legitimately raised about the length of time which might be needed to prepare to meet the claimant's amended case."

 

 

 

 

 

Employment Judge:

 

 

Date and place of hearing: 2 November 2017, Belfast.

 

 

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: