Tinker v Bahamasair Holdings Ltd

JudgeLockhart, P.
Judgment Date02 February 2015
CourtIndustrial Court (Bahamas)
Date02 February 2015
Docket Number148 of 2011

Industrial Tribunal

Lockhart, P.

148 of 2011

Bahamasair Holdings Limited

Representative for the applicant — Mr. Errol McKinney.

Counsel for the respondent — Adrian Hunt Esq.

Employment Law - Industrial dispute — Tribunal procedure — Application struck out for want of prosecution.

Lockhart, P.

By letter to the Secretary (Acting) of the Industrial Tribunal dated 27th ultimo the Representative for the applicant advised as follows:

“I write as per the above captioned matter that is set down for hearing in Court#1 in front of the President of the Tribunal on Wednesday February 4th and Thursday February 5th 2015.

Unfortunately, I am unable to locate my client, after an extensive search. The information I have received is that she is no longer living at the address that I have on file and the telephone numbers are out of order. Therefore I am requesting an adjournment for the dates in question.

I have retained an investigator in order to carry out a search and as soon as I have any further information I will advise you accordingly.

We thank you in advance for your usual cooperation.


E&M Associates

Errol J. McKinney”


The Tribunal convened the Hearing of this matter as scheduled on 4th instant and the Representative of the applicant advised that he was still not able to contact his client and in the circumstances prayed that the Tribunal grant an adjournment of the matter sine die to allow him to make further attempts to take his client's instructions;


Rule 18 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal Procedure) Rules 2010 inter alia provides:

“(1) Any notice given under these Rules shall be in writing…and a notice or document sent or given to the authorized representative of a party shall be deemed to have been sent or given to that party.”


Rule 18(4) of the said Rules provides:

“(4) A party may at any time by Notice to the Secretary in Form P in the Schedule and to the other party or parties change the address to which notices and documents are to be sent to him.”


The Secretary was never advised by the applicant of any change of address pursuant to the said Rule 18(4) and for that matter neither was any other officer of the Tribunal so advised;


Clearly, and a fortiori, it was the obligation of the applicant to advise her Representative of any change of address, or alternatively, to personally advise the Tribunal thereof and as to how she...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT