Patil v Harvey Nash PLC (Unauthorised Deduction of Wages) [2019] NIIT 08783_18IT (27 March 2019)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Patil v Harvey Nash PLC (Unauthorised Deduction of Wages) [2019] NIIT 08783_18IT (27 March 2019) URL: https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2019/08783_18IT.html Cite as: [2019] NIIT 08783_18IT, [2019] NIIT 8783_18IT [ New search ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS CASE REF: 8783/18 CLAIMANT: Linganna Patil RESPONDENT: Harvey Nash PLC DECISION ON A PRE-HEARING REVIEW 1. The subject matter of this claim has already been adjudicated upon in Great Britain. 2. Even had it not been, the tribunal is satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of it succeeding in Northern Ireland. 3. The claimant’s claim is therefore dismissed in its entirety. CONSTITUTION OF TRIBUNAL: Employment Judge (sitting alone): Employment Judge Browne APPEARANCES: The claimant attended and represented himself. The respondent was represented by Ms K Sweeting, Director of Compliance of the respondent. Issues : (1) Whether the matter the subject of this claim has already been adjudicated upon in Great Britain; and (2) If not, whether the claim has in any event no reasonable prospect of success. Conclusions 1. As regards Issue 1, the claimant confirmed that there is no difference between this case and that determined in England, whereby the claim was struck out in its entirety, due to the absence of the requisite contract of employment between him as an individual and the respondent. 2. He further confirmed that he did not appeal or seek a review of that decision. He explained that his reason for not doing so was because he thought that it was preferable to seek adjudication in Northern Ireland on the identical case running parallel to that in England. Whilst he asserted to this tribunal that the Employment Judge in London had not given him an opportunity to present his case, he at no stage raised this as a separate issue or as a ground of review or appeal in that case. 3. Whilst the claimant had previously been advised in this case by the tribunal Employment Judge to seek legal advice, he stated that he did not do so because of the expense. 4. The record of the tribunal’s decision in the case in England is clear in stating that the claimant at that hearing accepted that there was no contract between the parties. 5. He sought however at the hearing before me to assert that there was a contract of employment between him and the respondent, namely, by reason of a contract between the limited company, which he owns, and the respondent. 6. It is my conclusion that this matter was fully canvassed before the tribunal in England, and that there is no difference in fact or in law between that case and this. 7. I am therefore satisfied that the issue has previously been adjudicated upon, and that consequently this claim has no standing before this tribunal. I am moreover entirely in agreement with the decision and reasoning of the Employment Judge in the case in England. The claim is therefore dismissed in its entirety. 8. A fundamental issue in this case is that the lodgment of the tribunal claim in Northern Ireland (which pre-dated that in England) was fifteen months outside the permitted three-month time limit. This issue was pointed out to the claimant by an Employment Judge at two previous Case Management Discussions, and was one of the issues upon which he was encouraged to seek professional advice. 9. The claimant frankly accepted the breach of the time limit at the hearing. He was unable to provide any evidence which might enable the tribunal to conclude that it had not been reasonably practicable to lodge his claim within three months, other than that he had been trying to resolve the dispute through negotiation with the respondent. In the absence of any other explanation, I conclude that there was not any reason why it was not reasonable practicable to lodge his claim in time. 10. As such, I am satisfied that, even had the claimant been able to establish that he was in a contract of employment with the respondent, his claim has no reasonable prospect of success due to his failure to lodge his claim in time. 11. The tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to deal with this case, and the claimant’s claim consequently is dismissed in its entirety. Employment Judge: Date and place of hearing: 14 February 2019, Belfast. Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2019/08783_18IT.html