Woodburn Engineering Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board [2006] NIIT 324_05 (16 March 2006)

Woodburn Engineering Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board [2006] NIIT 324_05 (16 March 2006)

The tribunal held that the claimant's operations, by and large, fall outside the definition of the construction industry as set out in Schedule 1 to the 1964 Order. The portions of the claimant's activities that do fall within Schedule 1 are minimal and do not meet the threshold for the establishment to be considered engaged wholly or mainly in construction activities. Therefore, the claimant is not liable to pay the levy.

Citation
[2006] NIIT 324_05
Parties
Claimant: Woodburn Engineering Ltd; Respondent: Construction Industry Training Board
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
16 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal Appeal / Final Decision
Outcome
appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Definition of Construction Industry, Scope of Training Levy, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Industrial Training Levy Definition of Construction Industry Scope of Training Levy Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woodburn Engineering Ltd

Claimant

Construction Industry Training Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal Appeal / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Woodburn Engineering Ltd is liable to pay a levy to the Construction Industry Training Board under the Industrial Training (Construction Board) Order (Northern Ireland) 1964 and related Orders
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's activities fall within the definition of 'construction industry' as per Schedule 1 of the 1964 Order

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal held that the claimant's operations, by and large, fall outside the definition of the construction industry as set out in Schedule 1 to the 1964 Order. The portions of the claimant's activities that do fall within Schedule 1 are minimal and do not meet the threshold for the establishment to be considered engaged wholly or mainly in construction activities. Therefore, the claimant is not liable to pay the levy.

Court Disposition

appeal upheld

Orders

  • Woodburn Engineering Ltd is not liable to pay a levy to the Construction Industry Training Board.