| Summary |
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Respondents sought to reopen Authority investigation AA 59/08 – Applicant opposed reopening – Respondents argued unaware of investigation so not represented due to communication breakdown with former solicitors – Respondents argued wished to give evidence against allegations, had no knowledge of hearing date, expected mediation to be held first so waiting to be contacted by Mediation Service, had not received communications from then solicitors, and first respondent (“G”) absent from workplace during relevant period – Respondents also argued did not receive letter from former solicitors advising could no longer act for respondents, did not receive telephone message from Support Staff on day of investigation meeting, Authority determination wrongly identified G as employer and respondents should have opportunity to present evidence on that and other issues – Authority found G’s evidence inconsistent – Found G referred to applicant and Authority communications in letters – Found G did know, or should have known, of investigation meeting date – Found Authority file showed Notice of Investigation meeting signed for, and Support Officer contacted respondents on day of investigation meeting – Found respondents, in the person of G, knew of investigation meeting – Found respondents had adequate opportunity to participate – Found no miscarriage of justice in not reopening investigation – Investigation not reopened – Orders in determination AA 59/08 to stand |