1960_07IT McCloy v James Spence [2008] NIIT 1960_07IT (05 June 2008)

BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> McCloy v James Spence [2008] NIIT 1960_07IT (05 June 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2008/1960_07IT.html
Cite as: [2008] NIIT 1960_7IT, [2008] NIIT 1960_07IT

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


     
    THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

    CASE REF: 1960/07

    CLAIMANT: George McCloy

    RESPONDENT: James Spence

    DECISION

    The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant's claims are dismissed.

    Constitution of Tribunal:

    Chairman: Mrs Ó Murray

    Members: Ms M Mulligan

    Mrs B Heaney

    Appearances:

    The claimant was unrepresented and failed to appear at the hearing.

    The respondent was represented by Mr Warnock, BL, instructed by Berkeley White Solicitors.

    The claim

  1. The claimant's claims were for unfair dismissal and failure to provide written particulars of employment contrary to the Employment Rights (NI) Order 1996 and for breach of contract under the Industrial Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994.

    2. Reasons

  2. The claimant failed to appear on the morning of the hearing. The clerk attempted to contact the claimant via his former solicitors to no avail. The claimant had not contacted the tribunal nor had he contacted the respondent's representatives in relation to the hearing.

  3. Under the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005 at Rule 27(5), if a party fails to attend or be represented at hearing, the tribunal may dismiss, dispose of the proceedings or may adjourn the hearing to a later date. Under Rule 27(6), if the tribunal wishes to dismiss or dispose of the proceedings in these circumstances it must first consider any information in its possession that has been made available to it by the parties.

  4. The respondent's counsel made application under Rule 27(5) for the case to be dismissed.

  5. The tribunal considered the claim form and the response form. All claims were disputed and the respondent disputed that the claimant was dismissed at all, stating that he had resigned. The claimant's case was that he had been sacked.

  6. The burden was on the claimant to prove that he had been dismissed and to prove that his contract had been breached and that he had not been given written particulars of employment. The claimant's failure to appear at the hearing meant that he could not discharge that burden as the tribunal found that his claim form provided insufficient evidence to prove his claims.

  7. The tribunal therefore acceded to the respondent's application to dismiss the proceedings.

  8. The proceedings are, therefore, dismissed in accordance with Rule 27(5).

    9. Chairman:

    Date and place of hearing: 27 May 2008 Belfast

    Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2008/1960_07IT.html