Cart 0
Login
Northern Ireland
Lyapin v Denise Greatorex University of Ulster [2011] NIIT
Decision Number: Legal Body: niiet
Published on: 13/01/2012
Issues Covered:
Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Background The Vice President of Tribunals, sitting alone, issued written reasons for his oral decision to strike out an application after non-compliance with an „Unless Order‟ which had been issued to the claimant.The issue before the pre-hearing review was: Whether the claim should be struck-out, in whole or in part, for failure to comply with the terms of the „Unless Order‟ dated 8 August 2011.The claimant had made various race discrimination claims. Following an instance of noncompliance with an order for discovery on behalf of the complainant, an “Unless Order” was issued. It was made clear to the claimant that if he failed to comply with same that his case would be struck out.The respondents applied for a pre-hearing review to consider an application to strike out the claim for non-compliance with the „Unless Order‟. The claimant did not attend and failed to notify the tribunal that he would not be attending the pre-hearing review. The tribunal therefore incurred the unnecessary additional expense of booking a Russian interpreter to assist the claimant in this matter. The claimant furnished no explanation for his nonattendance and did not apply for a postponement.The court noted that the claimant‟s form was vague and non-specific, to the point where no useful response could be lodged by either respondent. Furthermore, the claimant failed to provide any meaningful response to a very clear and very simply expressed Order for Additional Information issued. The claimant was presented with yet a further opportunity in the form of the „Unless Order‟. Again, despite very clear directions given to him, the claimant totally failed to address the questions which had been put to him for answer. He also failed to comply with the clear time-limits set by the tribunal for replies. Finally, the claimant did not attend the pre-hearing review and did not provide any explanation for his failure to attend and did not apply for any postponement.39As a result of the above the Court struck out the claim in its entirety. It held that here would be absolutely no point in a tribunal having the power to strike out a claim under Rule 18(7)(e) if it were not proper to do so in the circumstances of the present case.http://bit.ly/AdkYWT

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Start your free trial now
Subscribe, or start free trial →
Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Subscribe or start free trial
Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 13/01/2012
Recent Case Law
Q&A
How to handle it
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →