[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Loughran v Portview Construction [2004] NIIT 2415_03 (24 November 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2004/2415_03.html Cite as: [2004] NIIT 2415_03, [2004] NIIT 2415_3

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 2415/03

APPLICANT: John Loughran

RESPONDENT: Portview Construction

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the application is dismissed.

Appearances:

The applicant was represented by Mr David Martin, Solicitor

The respondent was represented by Mr Conor McGahon, Barrister at Law

1. The issue before the tribunal was whether it had "jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claim in view of the provisions of Article 145 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 regarding the time limit for presenting his claim".
2. Mr McGahon pointed out the date of termination of employment was 30 January 2003 but that the date of the receipt of the application by the Office of Tribunals was 7 July 2003. The application was therefore some 9 weeks out of time and tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint as the applicant had failed to show why it had not been reasonably practicable to have lodged it within the prescribed time.
3. The applicant's case was that he got his daughter to type out his complaint and this was done within the prescribed time limits and was posted at that time. His daughter gave evidence of typing the letter sometime in February 2003, when she worked for Karl Construction, and she posted it that evening.
4. The facts before the tribunal were that the letter had been typed and posted in February 2003 and it had been the responsibility of the Post Office to ensure that it reached the Office of Tribunals in time. The tribunal had the benefit of seeing the envelope of posting which was attached to the office file and it clearly showed the date of posting as the 4 July 2003 and its receipt by the office on 7 July 2003, the date it was registered.
5. The tribunal were satisfied that there had been no fault or delay by the Post Office or the Office of Tribunals in dealing with the complaint. The application was made outside the time limits and the applicant had failed to show why it had not been reasonably practicable to have presented it within the 3 months period. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and the application is dismissed.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 24 November 2004, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: