Antonio Albuquerque v Barqueiro Restaurant Limited
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Posture
- Employment and Discrimination Tribunal Claim and Counterclaim / Judgment After Hearing
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Tribunal found that both sides had flagrantly failed to comply with the Tribunal’s orders, had not notified the Tribunal of the breaches or sought an adjournment, and had wasted the Tribunal’s and interpreter’s time. In those circumstances, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to strike out both the Claimant’s claims and the Respondent’s counterclaim.
Court disposition
Claims and counterclaim struck out for non-compliance with Tribunal orders.
Orders
- The Claimant’s claims are struck out.
- The Respondent’s counterclaim is struck out.
02
Material facts
Parties
ANTONIO ALBUQUERQUE
Claimant Counsel: Sandra DickinsonBARQUEIRO RESTAURANT LIMITED
Respondent Counsel: Samuel PintoAmounts and remedies
- Claim Form Date: 1
- Hearing Date: 29
- CMH Date: 25
03
Procedural history
Posture
Employment and Discrimination Tribunal Claim and Counterclaim / Judgment After Hearing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Claimant’s unfair dismissal claim could proceed despite lacking one year’s service.
- 02
Whether the parties’ non-compliance with Tribunal orders justified strike-out of the claim and counterclaim.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Claimant claimed unfair dismissal, notice pay and unpaid wages. At the hearing, Ms Dickinson said the Claimant had tried to send further information to Mr Pinto, but the email had been blocked. She also indicated the Claimant was abroad and struggling to access the video link.
- Respondent
- The Respondent alleged the Claimant resigned without notice and counterclaimed for monies lost because of that. Mr Pinto denied that he had blocked the Claimant’s email.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 25 of the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal (Procedure) (Jersey) Order 2016
The Tribunal may on its own initiative strike out all or part of a claim for non-compliance with Tribunal orders.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Tribunal found that both sides had flagrantly failed to comply with the Tribunal’s orders, had not notified the Tribunal of the breaches or sought an adjournment, and had wasted the Tribunal’s and interpreter’s time. In those circumstances, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to strike out both the Claimant’s claims and the Respondent’s counterclaim.
Obiter and limits
- The claim of unfair dismissal was rejected at an earlier stage because the Claimant did not have one year’s service as required by article 73(1) of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003.
Court disposition
Claims and counterclaim struck out for non-compliance with Tribunal orders.
- The Claimant’s claims are struck out.
- The Respondent’s counterclaim is struck out.
Source and reliance status
Official court record
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court record
Judgment
IN THE JERSEY EMPLOYMENT AND DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN
ANTONIO
ALBUQUERQUE
CLAIMANT
AND
BARQUEIRO
RESTAURANT LIMITED
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT Reference: [2023] TRE 85 Hearing date: 29 November 2023 Before: Dr E Moran Appearance: For the Claimant: Sandra Dickinson For the Respondent: Samuel Pinto
JUDGMENT The claims and counterclaim are struck-out for non-compliance with Tribunal orders.
REASONS 1. The Claimant submitted a Claim Form on 1 May 2023 claiming unfair dismissal, notice pay and unpaid wages. The claim of unfair dismissal was rejected because the Claimant did not have one year’s service as required by article 73(1) of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003.
2. The Respondent filed a Response Form on 30 May 2023 alleging that the Claimant resigned without notice. The Respondent brought a counterclaim for monies lost because of the Claimant leaving without notice.
3. There was a Case Management Hearing on 25 September 2023. The Claimant did not attend but was represented by Ms Dickinson. Orders were made to take the case up to a final hearing including orders for the provision of further information by both parties by 16 October 2023, disclosure by 30 October 2023, exchange of witness statements by 13 November 2023 and the Claimant to file bundles with the Tribunal by 22 November 2023.
4. No bundles were filed with the Tribunal by 22 November 2023. On 28 November 2023 Ms Dickinson attended the Tribunal with some pieces of paper and was asked to go away and prepare proper bundles.
5. No bundles had been filed by the Claimant at the start of the hearing at 10 am on 29 November 2023. Samuel Pinto attended the hearing on behalf of the Respondent. Ms Dickinson attended on behalf of the Claimant. A Portuguese translator attended via video. The Claimant was abroad. Despite being sent a link by email the previous day the Claimant did not attend the hearing via video. Ms Dickinson said the Claimant was on the phone in his car and was struggling to access the link.
6. It transpired that neither side had complied with any of the orders: - (i) No further information had been provided by either side. Ms Dickinson said that the Claimant had tried to send an email to Mr Pinto with the information, but Mr Pinto had blocked the email. Mr Pinto denied this. (j) No disclosure had taken place. (k) No witness statements had been exchanged. (l) Ms Dickinson had some paperwork with her but no bundles.
7. Article 25 of the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal (Procedure) (Jersey) Order 2016 states that the Tribunal can on its own initiative strike-out all or part of a claim for non-compliance with Tribunal orders.
8. There has been a flagrant flouting of the Tribunal orders by both sides and neither side considered it necessary to appraise the Tribunal of the breaches or to apply for an adjournment with the result that the time of the Tribunal and the interpreter have been wasted. In the circumstances I consider it appropriate to strike-out both the Claimant’s claims and the Respondent’s counterclaim. Dr E Moran, Chairman 1 December 2023
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.