BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Harkin v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2005] NIIT 1728_04 (9 May 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2005/1728_04.html Cite as: [2005] NIIT 1728_4, [2005] NIIT 1728_04 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CASE REF: 1728/04
CLAIMANT: Martin Harkin
RESPONDENT: Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
The tribunal determines that the claim is dismissed as the tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the claim in light of section 12 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The claimant is ordered to pay to the respondent the sum of £100 in respect of costs.
Appearances:
The claimant represented himself.
The respondent was represented by Mr C Ritchie Solicitor on behalf of Kennedy Solicitors.
This is a decision by a Chairman sitting alone in accordance with Rule 18 of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005.
The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant.
The claimant's claim as appeared from his originating application concerned an allegation of discrimination in relation to work carried out on behalf of the respondent at Watford, London. This would appear, at hearing, to have been work carried out as contract work contrary to section 12 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
The issue for the tribunal today was whether the Industrial Tribunal in Northern Ireland had jurisdiction to determine the claimant's complaint in view of his place of employment. The tribunal found the following facts:-
(a) The claimant was employed throughout the relevant time by Taskforce Recruitment (Northern Ireland) Limited. This is a Company based in Northern Ireland. He was employed by them to carry out work in Watford, London at that relevant time.
(b) At no time had the claimant ever carried out any work in Northern Ireland, either on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited or on behalf of Taskforce Recruitment (Northern Ireland) Limited.
Section 12 of the Disability Discrimination Act makes it quite clear that this Section can only extend to Northern Ireland so far as work has been carried out at an establishment based in Northern Ireland. Accordingly the tribunal concludes that it has no jurisdiction to determine the complaint as lodged by the claimant with the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal Office.
The respondent sought to make an application for costs. The application for costs was made in accordance with Rule 14(1) Schedule 1 of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004. Under Rule 14(1) the tribunal has a duty to consider whether to make an award for costs. Where it is satisfied that the claimant has acted vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably or a parties actions in bringing the proceedings have been misconceived. There is little case law to assist the tribunal in relation to the meaning of misconceived otherwise than it includes that there being no reasonable prospect of success.
While the proceedings in this tribunal in Northern Ireland had clearly no prospect of success the source of the claimant's misconception is placed by the claimant on advice received from the Disability Advice Commission in Cardiff. The tribunal was given no indication by the respondent's legal representative as to what costs were actually incurred by the respondent. It would appear that a necessary consideration for the tribunal is indeed to know what costs have actually been incurred. The claimant was put on notice of the respondent's intention to apply for these costs by letter of 29 April 2004. Again in the correspondence there does not appear to be any indication as to the measure of costs that had been incurred. There did not appear to have been considerable correspondence between the parties prior to the hearing.
The tribunal therefore has considered the evidence that it had heard today and the documentation placed before it and considers that an order for costs in the sum of £100.00 is an appropriate measure to reflect the time spent at hearing of this case. In the circumstances of the case this will be the order of the tribunal.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 9 May 2005, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties:
