Voveryte v Jacqueline Chivers [2011] NIIT 00260_10IT (05 December 2011)

Voveryte v Jacqueline Chivers [2011] NIIT 00260_10IT (05 December 2011)

The respondent and her representative failed to actively pursue the review application for over a year, despite multiple opportunities and accommodations for her medical condition. The delay was inordinate and prejudicial to the claimant, and there was no reasonable prospect of the review being heard in the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] NIIT 00260_10IT
Parties
Claimant: Sigita Voveryte; Respondent: Jacqueline Chivers
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
05 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal Review Application / Application for Review Struck Out
Outcome
Respondent's application for review struck out; original tribunal decision stands.
Legal Topics
Strike Out of Review Application, Delay in Proceedings, Medical Incapacity and Fair Hearing, Case Management, Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Civil Procedure Strike Out of Review Application Delay in Proceedings Medical Incapacity and Fair Hearing Case Management Tribunal Procedure

Source-derived case record

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sigita Voveryte

Claimant

Jacqueline Chivers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal Review Application / Application for Review Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's application for review should be struck out for failure to actively pursue it
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's medical condition justifies further delay in proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent and her representative failed to actively pursue the review application for over a year, despite multiple opportunities and accommodations for her medical condition. The delay was inordinate and prejudicial to the claimant, and there was no reasonable prospect of the review being heard in the foreseeable future. The requirements for strike out under Rule 18(7)(d) and the principles in Evans were met.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application for review struck out; original tribunal decision stands.

Orders

  • The respondent's application for review is struck out under Rule 18(7)(d) of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005.
  • The tribunal's decision issued to the parties on 22 June 2010 stands.