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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Haddock v Autism Initiatives NI [2014] NIIT 1854_13IT (09 January 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2014/1854_13IT.html Cite as: [2014] NIIT 1854_13IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
CASE REF: 1854/13
CLAIMANT: Thomas Haddock
RESPONDENT: Autism Initiatives NI
DECISION ON A PRE HEARING REVIEW
The claimant’s claims are out of time, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain them and the claims are therefore dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mrs Ò Murray
Appearances:
The claimant represented himself.
The respondent was represented by Ms A MacRandall of the respondent organisation.
Reasons
1. The PHR was arranged to deal with the following issue:
“Whether or not the claims of unfair dismissal and holiday pay were out of time and if so whether or not the relevant time limits should be extended”.
2. The claimant gave evidence on his own behalf and both sides produced some documentation. Following consideration of the evidence and submissions the following decision was delivered orally at the hearing.
3. “This is a Pre Hearing Review to deal with the respondent’s application that the claimant’s claims be struck out because they are out of time. It is clear from the chronology that the claimant’s claim was lodged outside the three-month time limit in relation to both his claims that is for holiday pay and for unfair dismissal because of whistleblowing.
4. According to the claimant he was dismissed on 28 June 2013. The time limits in both cases therefore expired on 28 September 2013. The claim form was lodged on 21 October 2013 and is therefore 23 days outside the relevant time limits.
5. I have to consider whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to lodge the claims within the three months. Another way of saying that is, was it reasonably feasible for the claimant to lodge within the time limits.
6. The claimant points to two matters to explain the delay: firstly that he did not know that he could claim, and secondly, he gave evidence of the sad deaths of two of his family members at the end of June.
7. Following these events, the claimant was able to consult a solicitor and, from correspondence put before me today, (the letters of 5 September and 23 September 2013) it is clear that the claimant discussed his employment situation with the solicitor and could have, or should have sought, or received, advice by giving details of the circumstances of his dismissal to his solicitor. I find it hard to accept that the claimant did not do this with his solicitor but went into these details and received advice to claim from a stranger on the telephone when he spoke to the Disclosure and Barring Service following their letter of 2 October 2013.
8. The legal authorities are clear that time limits are strict in these cases and the burden is on the claimant to persuade me that it was not reasonably practicable for him to present his claims within the time limits. I find that it was reasonably practicable in the circumstances of this case for the claimant to lodge his claims in time and I therefore refuse to extend time. I further find that the claimant did not act sufficiently promptly to present his claim following the discussion on the telephone with the Disclosure and Barring Service in early October 2013.
9. The claimant’s claims are therefore dismissed in their entirety.”
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 7 January 2014, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
