Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The decision of the tribunal is that the claimant�s claim to the tribunal dated 24 April 2009 cannot be amended to include a claim for unfair dismissal, and that it would have been reasonably practicable for him to bring a claim for unfair dismissal within the statutory period of three months from the effective date of termination of his employment. The tribunal declares that the claimant�s claim for an unlawful deduction of �100.63 is well founded and the respondent is ordered to pay this sum to the claimant.
The claimant did not appear or instruct any representation, but indicated by telephone on the morning of the hearing that he would not be attending and the case was to continue in his absence.
The respondent was represented by Mr Neeson, Barrister-at-law, instructed by O�Rourke McDonald & Tweed Solicitors.
In respect of the legal issues set out in the Record of Proceedings attached hereto, Mr Neeson, Barrister-at-Law appeared on behalf of the respondent.� Mr David Daly of the respondent represented it in relation to the claims in respect of deductions.
Mr Daly gave evidence on behalf of the respondent.� He also provided a bundle of documents.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.