Maguire v Allen [2005] NIIT 498_04 (16 November 2005)


BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Maguire v Allen [2005] NIIT 498_04 (16 November 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2005/498_04.html
Cite as: [2005] NIIT 498_4, [2005] NIIT 498_04

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


     
    THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

    CASE REF: 498/04

    CLAIMANT: Jodie Maguire

    RESPONDENT: Darren Allen

    T/A Allen's Chemist

    DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW

    The decision of the tribunal is that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the claim because the claim was lodged outside the statutory time limit, and no evidence was put before the tribunal to enable the tribunal to decide if time should be extended. The tribunal awards the respondent £450.00 +VAT costs. The claim is therefore dismissed.

    Constitution of Tribunal:

    Chairman: Mrs P Smyth

    Appearances:

    The claimant did not appear, nor was she represented.

    The respondent was represented by Mr P Coll, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Edwards & Company, Solicitors.

  1. The issue to be determined by the tribunal is whether the claim was lodged within time, and if not, if the tribunal determines that it was not reasonably practicable to lodge the claim in time, whether it was lodged within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable.

  2. The claimant's last day of employment was 31 October 2003. The claim form was lodged on 27 February 2004 – outside the three month time limit.

  3. The claim form provides no information as to why the claim was lodged out of time. The claimant did not attend the hearing, she was not represented, and she did not provide any documentation in support of her claim that time should be extended. She did not attend an earlier hearing to determine whether her Fair Employment claim was within time.

  4. The Notice of Hearing was not returned to the Office of the Tribunals. The respondent wrote to the claimant, both at her family home which is the address provided to the Office of the Tribunals, and also to another address which the respondent believed may be the address of the claimant. The letter warned the claimant that in light of the previous hearing before the Fair Employment Tribunal, the respondent intended to make an application for costs in the region of £1,500.00 plus VAT if this matter proceeded to a preliminary hearing. No response was received from the claimant, nor did she inform the tribunal that she did not intend to pursue her claim at the preliminary hearing.

  5. I considered Rule 27(5) of the Industrial Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2005 which deals with the procedure to be followed when a party fails to attend or be represented. I am satisfied that:-

    6. (a) on the face of the application the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because it was lodged outside the three month time limit;
    (b) the onus is on the claimant to satisfy the tribunal that it does have jurisdiction to hear the claim, notwithstanding that it is out of time; and
    (c) there is no evidence to suggest that the claimant did not receive the Notice of Hearing.

    In those circumstances I am satisfied that the claim should be dismissed.

  6. Mr Coll applied for costs on the basis of the claimant's unreasonable conduct. I am satisfied that the claimant has behaved unreasonably in failing to appear or provide any information on the issue of jurisdiction, particularly in view of the previous hearing before the Fair Employment Tribunal on the same issue and the consequent dismissal of that claim. I am not satisfied however that £1,500.00 + VAT is an appropriate amount for this hearing, and I make an Order for Costs in the sum of £450.00 + VAT.

  7. The claim is therefore dismissed.

    8. Chairman:

    Date and place of hearing: 16 November 2005, Belfast

    Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2005/498_04.html