Boylan v Pollock [2007] NIIT 395_07 (6 September 2007)

Boylan v Pollock [2007] NIIT 395_07 (6 September 2007)

The claim was dismissed because it was not presented within the statutory three-month period, and there was insufficient evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time or that any delay was due to a reasonable attempt to appeal or seek reconsideration.

Citation
[2007] NIIT 395_07
Parties
Claimant: Samuel Terence Boylan; Respondent: John Pollock; Respondent: Jim McKeown; Respondent: University and College Union
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
06 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Pre Hearing Review
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Union Discipline, Time Limits, Extension of Time
Employment Law Labour Law Trade Union Discipline Time Limits Extension of Time

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Terence Boylan

Claimant

John Pollock

Respondent

Jim McKeown

Respondent

University and College Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Pre Hearing Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's complaint was lodged within the statutory three-month time limit under Article 33(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
  2. 2 Whether it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to lodge his complaint within the time limit
  3. 3 Whether any delay was attributable to a reasonable attempt to appeal or have the determination reconsidered or reviewed

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because it was not presented within the statutory three-month period, and there was insufficient evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time or that any delay was due to a reasonable attempt to appeal or seek reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • First and second respondents removed from the claim by consent
  • Claim against the third respondent dismissed in its entirety