Smyth v Glentoran Recreation Company t... (Breach of Contract Unfair Dismissal) [2020] NIIT 17585_19IT (01 July 2020)

Smyth v Glentoran Recreation Company t... (Breach of Contract Unfair Dismissal) [2020] NIIT 17585_19IT (01 July 2020)

The tribunal found that the respondent provided a genuine and satisfactory explanation for failing to present its response within the time limit, that there was merit in the respondent’s defence, and that the respondent would suffer greater prejudice if the extension was refused than the claimant would if it was granted. Although the explanation for the delay in applying for the extension was unsatisfactory, the balance of factors made it fair and just to grant the extension.

Citation
[2020] NIIT 17585_19IT
Parties
Claimant: [Claimant Name Not Provided]; Respondent: [Respondent Name Not Provided]
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
01 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal Employment / Preliminary Hearing on Application for Extension of Time to Present Response
Outcome
Respondent’s application for extension of time to present response is granted.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Unfair Dismissal, Breach of Contract, Unlawful Deduction of Wages, Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Extension of Time Unfair Dismissal Breach of Contract Unlawful Deduction of Wages Tribunal Procedure

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

[Claimant Name Not Provided]

Claimant

[Respondent Name Not Provided]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal Employment / Preliminary Hearing on Application for Extension of Time to Present Response

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be granted an extension of time to present its response to the claimant’s claim

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the respondent provided a genuine and satisfactory explanation for failing to present its response within the time limit, that there was merit in the respondent’s defence, and that the respondent would suffer greater prejudice if the extension was refused than the claimant would if it was granted. Although the explanation for the delay in applying for the extension was unsatisfactory, the balance of factors made it fair and just to grant the extension.

Court Disposition

Respondent’s application for extension of time to present response is granted.

Orders

  • Extension of time granted for respondent to present its response to the claim.