Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Devlin v Creagh Concrete Products Ltd [2014] NIIT 1738_14IT (05 December 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2014/1738_14IT.html
Cite as: [2014] NIIT 1738_14IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1738/14
CLAIMANT: John Francis Devlin
RESPONDENT: Creagh Concrete Products Ltd
DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW
The decision of the tribunal is that it was not appropriate to sever this particular issue, given the nature of the evidence required to be fully determined. The time-limitation is therefore not resolved and will be heard together with the question of whether or not the dismissal was unfair at a full hearing.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Vice President (sitting alone): Mr N Kelly
Appearances:
The claimant was represented by Mr J Rafferty, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Doris & MacMahon, Solicitors.
The respondent was represented by Mr I Carroll, of Engineering Employers’ Federation Northern Ireland.
1. The decision was given orally in accordance with the Industrial Tribunals Rules of Procedure and directions were given in relation to a full hearing of all the issues in this matter. Those directions are contained in a separate document.
2. The decision of the tribunal was that this was one of those cases which the Court of Appeal has warned this tribunal about in Faulkner v BT, the SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] UKHL 37, and Peifer. In other words, after hearing the evidence of the claimant in relation to the time-limitation issue, I reached the conclusion that it would not be safe to determine this issue as a severable issue from the main and substantive issues in this case. I would need to have heard all the evidence which would, in essence, have been the evidence called in relation to the substantive matters before properly determining this matter. On the one hand, the claimant was stating that he had received a drip-feed of information which ultimately moved the matter from a suspicion to a reasonable knowledge of the claim and, on the other hand, the respondent was arguing that the claimant was in a position, even before he was made redundant; but certainly no later than mid-July 2014, to have lodged a claim. The matter will be listed for a full hearing which determine, firstly, whether time should be extended; and, secondly, whether, if so, the claim was fair or unfair.
Vice President
Date and place of hearing: 4 December 2014, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: