THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS 

CASE REF:	829/06IT 

CLAIMANT:	Paula Matthews			

RESPONDENTS:	1. Queen’s University, Belfast
	2. Professor Roger Woods
	3. Professor Alan Marshall

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW

The decision of the tribunal is that it is just and equitable, in all the circumstances of the case, for the tribunal to consider the claimant’s claim of Disability Discrimination despite the fact that it is out of time.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Chairman:			Mr S. A. Crothers (sitting alone)						

			

Appearances:

The claimant appeared in person and represented herself.

The respondent was represented by Miss R Carson, Legal Services Unit, Queen’s University Belfast.

The issues before the tribunal were:-

1.	Was the claim of disability discrimination presented to the tribunal within the specified time limit?

2.	If not, is it just and equitable, in all the circumstances of the case, for an industrial tribunal to consider the complaint despite the fact that it is out of time?

3.	The tribunal was presented with documentation from both parties.  Part of the claimant’s documentation was adopted by her as part of her evidence before the tribunal.

4.	Having analysed the evidence before it the tribunal came to the following findings of fact:-

i.	The claimant’s allegations of disability discrimination spanned the period from 6 September 2004, until 13 June 2005.  The claim against the second and third respondents did not extend beyond 4 April 2005 but extended after that date against the first named respondent until 13 June 2005.  The claim was presented to the Tribunal on 30 June 2006.

ii.	The claimant gave evidence as to the circumstances and reasons for delay in presenting the claim to the tribunal before 30 June 2006.  The tribunal had evidence before it in the form of a medical report from the claimant’s GP, Dr Dean, dated 26 May 2006 to the first respondents occupational health doctor, and which contains entries spanning the period from 9 May 2005 until 12 May 2006.  The tribunal accepts the claimants evidence regarding her medical condition which included attendances at the first respondent’s occupational health department, her own GP, and psychiatric treatment.  The claimant was hospitalised for a period of some four months from September 2005 until the week before Christmas 2005.  Thereafter, as the medical report from Dr Dean makes clear she was under further medical treatment in the subsequent months.  The claimant did contact Disability Action on 27 March 2006.   She was advised to contact the Labour Relations Agency and the Equality Commission who gave her the necessary forms to fill in for the tribunal.  The claimant described this process as being slow as she still was attending occupational health, a community psychiatric nurse, a pain clinic, her own GP, her psychiatrist, and was looking after two children at home. However she did lodge a complaint with the first named respondent’s personnel department on 1 May 2006, although Dr Dean’s report shows that she was still receiving medical treatment, the last entry in his report being on 12 May 2006.  Her application to the tribunal was signed by her on 29 May 2006.

5.	The claimant did not make submissions.  However the respondent’s legal representative
urged the tribunal to consider the position regarding the second and third respondent and that the time delay was greater in respect of them when compared to the first named respondent.  The tribunal was also urged to consider the period between the claimant’s release from hospital during the week prior to Christmas 2005 and her delay between that time and contacting Disability Action on 27 March 2006 and then not presenting her claim to the tribunal until 30 June 2006, despite the fact that she had been able to lodge a complaint with the first named respondent’s personal department on 1 May 2006.  The respondent’s representative also referred to her written submission and to the Fair Employment Tribunal Decision of Eithne McLaughlin and Queens University of Belfast contained therein.  She referred inter alia to the following sentence in the review decision…”the legislation relating to time limits does not provide that a person can decide of their own volition to wait for a period outside the three month time limit in order to try and get their complaint resolved to their satisfaction”.

6.	The law in relation to this matter is governed by paragraph 3 of schedule 3 to the
 	Disability Discrimination Act 1995.  The tribunal also considered the cases of Hutchison 
	-v- Westward Television Limited 1977 IRLR 69 EAT, Mills -v- Marshall 1998 IRLR 494
	 EAT and Robertson -v- Bexley Community Centre 2003 IRLR 434 CA.

Having carefully considered the evidence together with the submissions and applied the principles of law to the findings of fact the tribunal concludes as follows:-

1.	The claim to the industrial tribunal was presented against the respondent outside the time limit specified in paragraph 3 (1) of Schedule 3 to Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

2.	It is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case for the tribunal to consider the complaint of disability discrimination against all respondent’s notwithstanding that the relevant date for the purposes of paragraph (3) (b) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is 13 June 2005 in respect of the first respondent and 4 April 2005 in respect of the second and third named respondents.  

Chairman:				

Date and place of hearing:	22 November 2006, Belfast.

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: