Case 3308965/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Not served RECONSIDERATION — 2022
- Case reference
- 3308965/2022
- Decision date
- 29 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 29 June 2022 Mr Gerald Boylan presented complaints against Allvotec Limited seeking a protective award for alleged failure to consult adequately in respect of a collective redundancy and holiday pay. He had been through early conciliation between 18 May 2022 and 29 June 2022. The claim was rejected because the tribunal considered it lacked jurisdiction, and proceedings were not served on the respondent.
On reconsideration, Regional Employment Judge Foxwell confirmed the original rejection. The judge noted that Mr Boylan lived in Northern Ireland and had worked there for the respondent. Although the respondent had a registered office in England, the tribunal held that the statutory provisions relied on for these complaints did not extend to Northern Ireland.
For the holiday pay complaint, the tribunal referred to regulation 1(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and section 244(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, both of which do not extend to Northern Ireland. For the protective award complaint, the tribunal held that sections 188 to 192 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, under which a protective award arises, do not apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of section 301. The judge therefore confirmed that the Employment Tribunal in England and Wales had no jurisdiction to hear either claim.
The tribunal also referred to Odeco (UK) Inc v Peacham [1979] ICR 823 in explaining that a respondent's registered office in England could otherwise satisfy the territorial requirement, but that point did not assist the claimant because the governing statutes themselves did not extend to Northern Ireland.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim for alleged failure to consult adequately in respect of a collective redundancy. The tribunal rejected and then confirmed rejection on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction because the relevant statutory provisions did not extend to Northern Ireland, where the claimant lived and worked. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaint. The tribunal rejected and then confirmed rejection on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction because the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the relevant part of the Employment Rights Act 1996 do not extend to Northern Ireland. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Odeco (UK) Inc v Peacham [1979] ICR 823
- regulation 1(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 244(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 188 to 192 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 301 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.