Case 3314423/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S O’Doherty v Yell Sales Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314423/2021
- Decision date
- 15 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell On
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S O’Doherty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for Yell Sales Limited as a tele-sales consultant in its Belfast office. On 20 November 2020 he presented claims through the England and Wales online tribunal system, described as automatic unfair dismissal for alleged protected disclosures and breach of contract as to notice. The claim was allocated by reference to the respondent's head office postcode in Reading, although the claimant had identified Belfast as his place of work on the claim form.
On 7 December 2020 Regional Employment Judge Foxwell directed that the claim be rejected because it should have been presented in Northern Ireland. The claimant's solicitors later sought reconsideration, and time for the application was extended because of the history of the rejection and clarification of the reason for it. The request for reconsideration was then refused.
The tribunal held that the claims were made under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994, but those provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland. It relied on section 244(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 47 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, and concluded that it had no jurisdiction over employment disputes arising in Northern Ireland and no power to transfer the claims to that jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim presented as automatic unfair dismissal for alleged protected disclosures. The tribunal held it should have been presented in Northern Ireland and refused reconsideration of the rejection. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for breach of contract as to notice. The tribunal held it should have been presented in Northern Ireland and refused reconsideration of the rejection. | Other | — | — |
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.