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 >> Boyd v T J Hughes Ltd (in liquidation... [2014] NIIT 1991_13IT (13 January 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2014/1991_13IT.html
Cite as: [2014] NIIT 1991_13IT
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1991/13
CLAIMANT: Anthony Boyd
RESPONDENT: T J Hughes Ltd (in liquidation)
DECISION ON A PRE HEARING REVIEW
The claimant’s protective award complaint (under Article 217 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996) is dismissed, because an industrial tribunal is precluded from considering his complaint on account of the delay in presenting it.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr P Buggy
Appearances:
The claimant was not present or represented.
The respondent was debarred from participating in the proceedings because it had not presented a response within the relevant time limit.
REASONS
1. At present I am unaware of any good reason for the claimant’s non-attendance at this hearing. I decided to go ahead with the hearing in his absence.
2. The claimant’s complaint is a complaint brought under Article 217 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (“the Order”).
3. I announced my decision at the end of the hearing. At the same time I gave brief oral reasons for that decision. Accordingly, what follows is by way of summary only.
4. Article 217 contains what amount to primary and secondary time limits in respect of Article 217 complaints.
5. The primary time limit is three months beginning with “the date on which the last of the dismissals to which the complaint relates takes effect”. This complaint was clearly not brought within that period.
6. The secondary time limit is potentially available to a claimant only “... in a case where [a tribunal] is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented during [the primary time limit]”.
7. On the evidence available to me in this case, I was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented during the primary time limit.
8. If I had been so satisfied, there would have been another issue to be resolved. That other issue would have been whether or not I considered the period of further delay (the period of delay after the expiration of the primary time limit, and up to the date on which the proceedings were finally presented to an industrial tribunal) to be “reasonable”. However, that second issue did not have to be resolved in this case, because I have found against the claimant on the first issue.
______________________________________
P Buggy
Chairman
Date and place of hearing: 7 January 2014, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: