Kerr v British Telecommunications PLC [2007] NIFET 83_06 (08 February 2007)

Kerr v British Telecommunications PLC [2007] NIFET 83_06 (08 February 2007)

The claimant had knowledge of the matters giving rise to his claim by 24 June 2005 and failed to lodge his claim within the extended statutory time limit. The delay after 14 February 2006 was not justified, and the claimant did not take steps to seek advice or lodge the claim promptly. It would not be just and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] NIFET 83_06
Parties
Claimant: Seamus Alphonsus Kerr; Respondent: British Telecommunications PLC
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
08 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Fair Employment Tribunal Pre Hearing Review / Pre Hearing Review Decision
Outcome
claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Time Limits, Internal Grievance Procedures, Just and Equitable Extension, Jurisdiction
Employment Law Discrimination Law Time Limits Internal Grievance Procedures Just and Equitable Extension Jurisdiction

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seamus Alphonsus Kerr

Claimant

British Telecommunications PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Fair Employment Tribunal Pre Hearing Review / Pre Hearing Review Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the claim presented within the statutory time limit?
  2. 2 Should the Tribunal exercise its discretion to extend the time limit on a just and equitable basis?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant had knowledge of the matters giving rise to his claim by 24 June 2005 and failed to lodge his claim within the extended statutory time limit. The delay after 14 February 2006 was not justified, and the claimant did not take steps to seek advice or lodge the claim promptly. It would not be just and equitable to extend the time limit; Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Tribunal declines to extend time limit; claim not admitted