McCrea v Warwick & Ors [2006] NIFET 98_05FET (22 September 2006)

McCrea v Warwick & Ors [2006] NIFET 98_05FET (22 September 2006)

The claim was presented outside the statutory three-month time limit from the date of the alleged discriminatory act (6 January 2005), and there was no sufficient or convincing reason to exercise the Tribunal's discretion to extend time under Article 46(5) of the 1998 Order. The delay was attributable to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] NIFET 98_05FET
Parties
Claimant: John McCrea; Respondent: Gavin Warwick; Respondent: Connor O'Neill; Respondent: Interlink Ireland Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
22 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Fair Employment Tribunal Claim (pre Hearing Review) / Pre Hearing Review Decision on Limitation and Extension of Time
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Unlawful Discrimination, Religious Belief Discrimination, Political Opinion Discrimination, Limitation Period, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Anti Discrimination Law Unlawful Discrimination Religious Belief Discrimination Political Opinion Discrimination Limitation Period Extension of Time Procedural Fairness

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

John McCrea

Claimant

Gavin Warwick

Respondent

Connor O'Neill

Respondent

Interlink Ireland Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Fair Employment Tribunal Claim (pre Hearing Review) / Pre Hearing Review Decision on Limitation and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim was presented within the statutory time limit under Article 46(1) of the Fair Employment & Treatment (NI) Order 1998
  2. 2 Whether it is just and equitable to extend time for presenting the claim under Article 46(5) of the 1998 Order

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was presented outside the statutory three-month time limit from the date of the alleged discriminatory act (6 January 2005), and there was no sufficient or convincing reason to exercise the Tribunal's discretion to extend time under Article 46(5) of the 1998 Order. The delay was attributable to the claimant, who had access to legal advice and was aware of the limitation period.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed