Murray v Belfast Education and Library ... [2008] NIIT 2018_07IT (16 June 2008)

Murray v Belfast Education and Library ... [2008] NIIT 2018_07IT (16 June 2008)

The application to amend the claim was refused because the proposed amendment constituted a new cause of action not referred to in the original claim, was lodged outside the statutory three-month time limit, and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the complaint within the time limit. There was no sufficient basis to extend the time limit under Article 71(3)(b).

Citation
[2008] NIIT 2018_07IT
Parties
Claimant: Daniel Murray; Respondent: Belfast Education and Library Board
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
16 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Pre Hearing Review on Application to Amend Claim
Outcome
Application to amend claim refused
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Whistleblowing, Sex Discrimination, Amendment of Claim, Time Limits
Employment Law Protected Disclosure Whistleblowing Sex Discrimination Amendment of Claim Time Limits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Murray

Claimant

Belfast Education and Library Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Pre Hearing Review on Application to Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend his claim to include a claim for detriment due to making a protected disclosure under Article 67A of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment is out of time and if the time limit should be extended

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend the claim was refused because the proposed amendment constituted a new cause of action not referred to in the original claim, was lodged outside the statutory three-month time limit, and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the complaint within the time limit. There was no sufficient basis to extend the time limit under Article 71(3)(b).

Court Disposition

Application to amend claim refused