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 >> Annett v Ministry of Defence [2008] NIIT 885_08IT (18 November 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2008/00885.html Cite as: [2008] NIIT 885_08IT, [2008] NIIT 885_8IT |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CLAIMANT: Geoffrey Stephen David Annett
The decision of the industrial tribunal is that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claim. He did not present his claim within the time-limit laid down by Regulation 8 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000, and it is not just and equitable, in all the circumstances of this case, for the tribunal to consider the complaint, notwithstanding that it is out of time.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman (sitting alone): Mr D Buchanan
The respondent was represented by Ms S Bradley, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by The Treasury Solicitor’s Office.
|
1. |
(i) |
This matter was listed for a pre-hearing review to consider the following issue:- |
“Whether the claimant has presented his claim to an industrial tribunal within the time specified by Regulation 8 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000, and, if not, whether in all the circumstances of the case, it is just and equitable for the tribunal to consider the complaint.
|
|
(ii) |
In order to determine this matter, the tribunal heard evidence from Mr Annett, and from Mr David Millar on his behalf. It also had regard to documentary evidence submitted by the respondent. |
It finds the following facts proved:-
(i) Mr Annett, who had been a part-time soldier in the RIR, presented his claim to the tribunal on 16 June 2008.
He had been discharged from the Regiment on 31 December 2006.
His claim should have been lodged by 30 June 2007 (as a serviceman he had a six month period in which to present his claim).
His claim was therefore almost one year late. This was not disputed, and therefore the issue was whether it was just and equitable to extend the time-limit.
|
3. |
(i) |
The delay here was substantial. Mr Annett said he had been in the Regiment’s Pipes and Drums, and they were ‘out of the loop’ as far as developments arising out of disbandment were concerned. Some of his colleagues in the Pipes and Drums joined the Territorial Army, but he did not do so, and lost contact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
However, I find it significant that he invoked the service redress procedure on 3 June 2006. He was clearly aware that he had a potential cause of action and the procedures to be followed and he should have followed these matters up. |
4. I therefore cannot find any ground on which to exercise the discretion which I have to extend time in his favour. This being so, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine his claim.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 24 October 2008, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
00885-08
IT
