Wood v Anthony Barbour [2008] NIIT 2508_06IT (16 October 2008)

Wood v Anthony Barbour [2008] NIIT 2508_06IT (16 October 2008)

The tribunal refused to extend time for review as Mr Barbour failed to provide credible reasons for the delay, had prior experience with tribunal procedures, and gave inconsistent evidence. The tribunal awarded costs against Mr Barbour as his application for review was vexatious and his conduct in vacating a review hearing on the day was unreasonable.

Citation
[2008] NIIT 2508_06IT
Parties
Claimant: Matthew Wood; First Named Respondent: Anthony Barbour; Second Named Respondent: James Mawhinney; Third Named Respondent: Ann's Pantry
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
16 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Application for Extension of Time to Review Decision and Application for Costs
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; costs awarded against first-named respondent.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Extension of Time, Review of Tribunal Decision, Costs Orders, Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Extension of Time Review of Tribunal Decision Costs Orders Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Wood

Claimant

Anthony Barbour

First Named Respondent

James Mawhinney

Second Named Respondent

Ann's Pantry

Third Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Application for Extension of Time to Review Decision and Application for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal should extend time for the respondents to seek a review of the decision
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded against the respondents for unreasonable conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal refused to extend time for review as Mr Barbour failed to provide credible reasons for the delay, had prior experience with tribunal procedures, and gave inconsistent evidence. The tribunal awarded costs against Mr Barbour as his application for review was vexatious and his conduct in vacating a review hearing on the day was unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; costs awarded against first-named respondent.

Orders

  • First and second-named respondents' application for extension of time to seek review refused.
  • First-named respondent ordered to pay costs of £1,938.75.