THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF:  1113/16
CLAIMANT:	Matthew Hunt

RESPONDENT:	O’Reilly Transport (Ireland) Ltd

APPEARANCES:

CLAIMANT BY:	The claimant did not attend and was not represented.

RESPONDENT BY:	Mr G Gollogly, of Gollogly & Company, Accountants and Auditors.

COUNTERCLAIM

CASE REF:  1281/16  

CLAIMANT:	O’Reilly Transport (Ireland) Ltd

RESPONDENT:	Matthew Hunt

APPEARANCES:

CLAIMANT BY:	Mr G Gollogly, of Gollogly & Company, Accountants and Auditors.

RESPONDENT BY:	The claimant did not attend and was not represented.

DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW

The decision of the tribunal is that it has no jurisdiction to hear the claims in case references: 1113/16 and 1281/16.

Constitution of Tribunal:

Employment Judge (sitting alone):	Employment Judge Crothers

THE CLAIM

1.	The claimant presented a claim to the tribunal on 31 March 2016 alleging breach of contract in relation to notice pay and holiday pay and also claiming an amount by way of arrears of pay.  The counter claim relates to various items of company property.

REASONS

2.	In his claim form the claimant gave his address as 21 Winster Park, Lancaster, Lancashire.  He provided an address for the respondent at 79 South Parade, Belfast which is Mr Gollogly’s home address and is also the company’s registered address in Northern Ireland.

3.	The claimant participated by way of telephone link in Case Management Discussions held on 27 July and 24 August 2016 during which the issue of jurisdiction was raised.  Reference was also made to the Northern Ireland tribunal case of Harrison v 1.  Randox Laboratories Ltd, 2.  Randox Laboratories India Private Ltd (case ref. nos. 1107/10 and 1152/10).  In that case the tribunal gave several reasons as to how the claimant had established that he had a substantial connection with Northern Ireland at the relevant time.  

4.	In relation to Harrison, paragraph 4 of the Case Management Discussion Record dated 28 July 2016 states: 

	“It indicated that the general rule was that the place of employment is normally decisive in determining jurisdiction.  If the place of employment is England, it will follow that the correct jurisdiction for this matter is arguably England.  If that is the case, the Northern Ireland Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to determine this matter.”

5.	Paragraph 5 of the record of proceedings points out that:-

	“This raises two particular difficulties for the claimant.  Firstly, his claim in England may now be out of time and he may have to apply for an extension of time.  Secondly, the English Tribunal charges fees to lodge cases which do not apply in this jurisdiction”.

6.	The tribunal had regard to the contract of employment dated 27 January 2016 signed by the claimant and by the respondent company.  It clearly states that on the first page that:-

	“This contract is made within the jurisdiction of the courts and employment tribunals of England, Wales and shall be governed by the law of England and Wales”.

The contract is also clear in establishing that the place of employment and the address of the employer was in Morecambe in Lancashire.  It had already been pointed out in the Case Management Discussion held on 24 August 2016, that the employment attracted the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunals in England and Wales.  

7.	The tribunal is satisfied that the claimant was employed in England to work in England and had no connection with Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.  

CONCLUSION

8.	The tribunal is therefore satisfied, in light of the foregoing, that it has no jurisdiction to hear either the claim or counterclaim, which are therefore dismissed.

Employment Judge:       

Date and place of hearing:	2 November 2016, Belfast.	

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: