Raj v Midhill Ltd Trading As Subway ... [2010] NIIT 01070_10IT (10 March 2011)

Raj v Midhill Ltd Trading As Subway ... [2010] NIIT 01070_10IT (10 March 2011)

The application for review was refused because the additional documents were not new evidence within the meaning of the rules, as they existed at the time of the hearing and could have been produced then. There were no special circumstances or mitigating factors justifying a review in the interests of justice. The tribunal had properly applied the relevant statutory provisions, and any challenge to the tribunal's findings should be made by appeal, not by review.

Citation
[2010] NIIT 01070_10IT
Parties
Claimant: Anupam Raj; Respondent: Midhill Ltd Trading As Subway Botanic
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
10 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Industrial Tribunal Decision / Decision on Application for Review
Outcome
application for review refused
Legal Topics
Unfair Constructive Dismissal, Sex Discrimination, Racial Discrimination, Statutory Grievance Procedure, Review of Tribunal Decision
Employment Law Unfair Constructive Dismissal Sex Discrimination Racial Discrimination Statutory Grievance Procedure Review of Tribunal Decision

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anupam Raj

Claimant

Midhill Ltd Trading As Subway Botanic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Industrial Tribunal Decision / Decision on Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal should review its decision on the grounds of new evidence or interests of justice
  2. 2 Whether the claimant complied with the statutory grievance procedure
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal's findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review was refused because the additional documents were not new evidence within the meaning of the rules, as they existed at the time of the hearing and could have been produced then. There were no special circumstances or mitigating factors justifying a review in the interests of justice. The tribunal had properly applied the relevant statutory provisions, and any challenge to the tribunal's findings should be made by appeal, not by review.

Court Disposition

application for review refused

Orders

  • The application for review of the tribunal's decision is refused.