Gorman v MMD Communications Ltd [2012] NIIT 01128_11IT (28 February 2012)

Gorman v MMD Communications Ltd [2012] NIIT 01128_11IT (28 February 2012)

The application for review was refused because the evidence submitted was not new within the meaning of Rule 34(3)(d), having been available to the claimant prior to the hearing, and the interests of justice did not require a review given the need for finality and absence of special circumstances.

Citation
[2012] NIIT 01128
Parties
Claimant: Hugh Gorman; Respondent: MMD Communications Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
28 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Review / Post Judgment Review
Outcome
application for review refused
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Jurisdiction, Statutory Time Limits, Review of Tribunal Decisions
Employment Law Breach of Contract Jurisdiction Statutory Time Limits Review of Tribunal Decisions

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh Gorman

Claimant

MMD Communications Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Review / Post Judgment Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new evidence justifies review of tribunal decision
  2. 2 Whether interests of justice require review
  3. 3 Whether statutory time limits for breach of contract claim were properly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The application for review was refused because the evidence submitted was not new within the meaning of Rule 34(3)(d), having been available to the claimant prior to the hearing, and the interests of justice did not require a review given the need for finality and absence of special circumstances.

Court Disposition

application for review refused

Orders

  • Application for review of tribunal decision is refused; no reasonable prospect of decision being varied or revoked.