Seamus & Christine talk NI caselaw - shoplifters, swearing and ChatGPT!

Breen v Tesco Stores & Doherty [2026] - A cashier with COPD is told to chase a shoplifter. Her manager then questions her COPD, asks if she's on PIP and suggests a wedding means she's fit for work.

Preshur v DHL Supply Chain [2026] - ADHD, multiple investigations, a secret job offer and an employee who swore at the Employment Judge. 

Hegarty v Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service [2026] - Two Tribunals, one month apart, completely opposite views on AI-drafted witness statements. This one is unresolved, and it's heading your way.

Tell your HR colleagues or get your HR team around the computer and use the webinars as monthly group learning opportunities. Or catch up on Spotify or Apple Music while you're on the go!

Please note that the employment law matters discussed in this webinar apply primarily to Northern Ireland. 

Transcript:

Christine: You're very welcome to Employment Law at 11, sponsored by HRLocker. My name is Christine Quinn. I'm from Legal-Island. And as always, I'll be chatting to Seamus McGranaghan of O'Reilly Stewart Solicitors.

What's the topic today? It's my favourite type of Employment Law at 11. It's a case law special. I love to chat about some cases. We're looking at three cases from the Northern Ireland Tribunal. We'll have one that mentions shoplifting, one that mentions swearing at a judge, no less, and also one that deals with ChatGPT. AI cases are starting to filter through the Northern Irish tribunals, so what are the judges saying about it?

Please feel free to submit your questions at any time using the Q&A feature. And I will make sure to put them to Seamus as and when appropriate.

I've also attached, to the webinar, PDFs of each case decision that we're going to be talking about today. And you'll also find links to barrister Jason Elliott's review of each of the cases on the Legal-Island Hub. The links will be dropped in as well, and those cases are available to view for free for the next couple of weeks. So do have a look at those.

Thanks as always to our sponsor, HRLocker. HRLocker is an all-in-one HR software platform that simplifies people management for growing businesses. From leave requests and time tracking to performance reviews and employee records, it brings everything into one easy-to-use system. As your team grows, scaling with HRLocker is scaling with confidence.

Now, as always, I'm going to kick off with some polls. Today, full disclosure, these are purely for my benefit. I am in the midst of drafting Legal-Island's Annual Review, so I want to pick your brain a little bit and see what you're interested in.

Which of the following topics would you most like to see covered at a future event, Legal-Island's Annual Review? So, we've got intergenerational workforce issues, we've got the manosphere in the workplace, we've got the use of DSARs in litigation and other contentious matters, or how to prepare for an employment tribunal. If you could have a vote on those.

We won't be sharing the poll results today, so it's purely for me and the rest of the Knowledge Team to have a look, and it'll help guide what our plans are.

There is a second poll, which Gosia will put up in just a second when she's ready. And from this second list, which topics would you most like to see covered? Again, if you could select one that's of most interest to you. Is it managing absence, protected disclosures and whistleblowing, or family leave and other special leave? What's kind of sitting on your desk annoying you at the moment that you would like Legal-Island to give you a little bit of guidance on?

So, if you could, vote away there. And as I say, it won't be shown, so please feel free to be honest. Thank you very much. That's really helpful, everyone. Thank you for doing that.

Seamus, we've got three cases that we're going to be talking about today. There they are. The first one is Breen v Tesco Stores & Doherty. So, Seamus, do you want to give us a little bit of background to the first case, the Breen case? Tell us the story and what happened in that case.

Seamus: Yeah. So, look, there are three interesting cases to review today, Christine. It's worth pointing out that these are three local Northern Irish industrial tribunal cases. They are all fairly recent cases as well.

And they're interesting, I think, as well because all three of the cases . . . the first and the third case are both preliminary hearings. They're not the full run of a case itself. Both the first and the third are dealing with statutory time limits.

It's always helpful and interesting from a practitioner's point of view to be able to see some case law around the tests that are applied by the tribunal in relation to and the evidence that they will look at in relation to time limits and things like that.

And the middle case, then, is a lengthy, full case. I think that they're all available there on the system for anyone to review. But as ever, you can always go on to the industrial tribunal website, and you can go to the publications section and obtain copies of these judgements.

And I think it's important to say that these judgements are public publications that are available. We've reviewed the decisions that are online, and we are providing some commentary in and around what is available.

So, we're not breaching any confidentiality here. I don't know any background. I wasn't involved in any of the three cases, so I don't know any juicy details around the background of the hearings or anything like that.

But what is impressive is that the decisions are from hearings that are very recent. There's been no sort of significant delay in getting these decisions out or anything like that. And it brings us up to speed as to where we're at.

So, the first case that we have is the case of Breen v Tesco Stores Limited is the first respondent, and then the second respondent, Fiona Doherty. Fiona Doherty was essentially the claimant's line manager, where she made specific claims and allegations against the line manager.

This was a judgement on a preliminary issue, so it was a preliminary hearing that was heard in the tribunal. It was heard just back on 12 March of this year, really not that far away. And the judgement just issued on 3 April of this year.

The basics are that the claimant was employed as a checkout operator, a till operator, whatever way you want to call it, from 2018 in a Tesco store in Portadown. And the claimant brought a claim in the tribunal alleging that there was bullying and harassment by her line manager, the second respondent.

And the case itself probably . . . I mean, the best thing that you could say is that it concerns an employee who took periods of sickness due to a decline and an exacerbation of their conditions.

This was an employee who suffered from COPD, asthma, and then had some resulting mental health issues that the claimant alleged arose, and that there was a deterioration in her mental health and her other conditions as a result of her treatment at work. And particularly, she pointed the finger at how she was treated by her line manager.

What the claimant alleged was that she was discriminated against on the basis of her disability through bullying and harassment by the line manager and by the employer.

Interestingly, this was a case where the claimant was ultimately dismissed on the grounds of incapability. There was a lengthy period of absence, and it was not the line manager that made that decision.

But interesting facts, as these cases always unfold, are that there was a number of matters that took place during the period of the absence, just before the absence. And then right up to the absenteeism, there were various meetings that the manager attended, one of which took place at the claimant's home as an absentee meeting.

So, sort of just by way of background, the issues commenced around 8 October. We said that the claimant was an operator at the checkout. A customer approached the checkout, the value of goods was £1,400, and then they had what was termed as a walk-off and the customer then absconded essentially with all of the goods, the value of the £1,400, without paying for them.

Manager was critical of the employee whenever the employee reported it through. And the manager said that she should have run after and essentially chased down, with somebody else in the workplace, the alleged perpetrator who had taken the goods. The claimant took offence to that because of her COPD and because of her health issues and said that she wasn't in a position to do that.

There was clearly an issue that had arisen between the claimant and the line manager. The line manager, from the position, appeared certainly to have taken a robust position with the employee. And understandably. There's £1,400 worth of goods.

Comments were made in relation to, "Due to the value of the goods that were presented at the checkout, that should have been a red flag, because it would be unusual for someone to have £1,400 of goods".

Equally, the claimant also made comments that security had been withdrawn from the store. And so there wasn't a security guard. And often, now you see in any of the shops that you go into that there's a security guard there. Also, you haven't got a headset. At Tesco, sometimes you do see the employees with the headsets on. There was no way for her to communicate to raise her concerns.

She came back to work after the event, but she was only in work an hour on her next shift, and she took ill and she said that there was a flare-up in her COPD. And you can sort of tell from the judgement that these issues had arisen between the line manager and herself.

Essentially, she commences a period of absence on 29 October. These absences are all around her decline in her health. And ultimately, then, she's admitted to hospital on 5 November.

There's a notification that comes from . . . there's a fiery enough correspondence orally and via text message between the employee and the line manager. But there is an admittance, then, to hospital for treatment.

And there seems to be some swift movement by the manager in relation to getting an investigatory meeting set up in relation to the matters that took place on 8 October, followed by a swift enough approach around having absentee meetings issued as regards the absence.

The employee remains out on sick leave from 29 October, and ultimately her employment is terminated on 5 September. This event happened on 23 October 2023. The absence starts in October 2023, late in October. And ultimately, then, there's a termination . . . I think 5 September 2024 is the termination date. So not quite a full year.

I always find the interesting part of these things is about the process whenever you're going for an incapability dismissal.

There were attendances at occupational health. I think there were three attendances in total. And occupational health were advising that the claimant was not fit to return to work. Ultimately, the occupational health report did say that she was permanently unfit to return to work.

Now, we don't get a fair crack of the whip with this case because, ultimately, the judge finds that the case is brought outside of the time limit. That was the purpose of the preliminary hearing. And there wasn't a just and equitable background in order to extend the time frame. We don't get into the real nitty-gritty of the case itself.

But the judgement does set out the background and the interesting facts of all of this. And it would be interesting if the case had actually run as to what the tribunal's position would have been around the termination.

I think what I picked up on was that there was medical evidence to say that she was permanently incapacitated and wouldn't be able to return to work. But the judge makes a comment that the claimant's evidence was that she always intended to return to work and obviously did not wish to be terminated or dismissed.

When you break down into the minutiae of the relationship between the manager and the employee, you can see that it is strained and difficult. At the various absentee meetings, there are comments and allegations thrown out, and sort of concerning enough comments. Probably not what you would advise if you were advising the client from our perspective.

There were comments made around, I think, that she had had her nails and possibly her hair done at one of the meetings, and there was criticism almost from the manager and say, "Well, if you were fit enough to go out to get your hair and your nails done, you should be fit enough to attend work".

There was also a family wedding that was coming along. And the claimant disclosed that she wished to attend the wedding. And again, I think there was a comment that said, "If you're fit enough to attend the wedding, you should be fit enough to return to work". And the claimant was making a point of, "If I go to the wedding, it will be with family support given".

And then I think that there was an allegation made by the claimant during one of the meetings where the line manager simply closed the meeting down after the comment was made. So, it was difficult.

During this period, as well, the claimant also took COVID and was admitted to hospital on the basis of COVID. There was a comment that's recorded within the judgement where the line manager said something along the lines of, "You don't sound too bad", whenever they had a telephone call.

I suppose it's just around from a legal perspective . . . and again, bearing in mind that we don't have a decision around those issues. But bearing in mind that those sorts of comments are not advisable to be making to any employee. On a discrimination claim, it could reflect badly and could swing the balance around a panel hearing those, particularly if you have a disability claim and maybe somebody that has vulnerabilities around their health.

The interesting part of this case was, I think, around the tribunal's decision not to extend the period of time. There is discretion in a discrimination case. It's a just and equitable, whether it is just and equitable to do so. On an unfair dismissal case, it tends to be more setting around whether it is a reasonably practicable test.

But on the just and equitable side of it, the claimant appeared, certainly, to rely on the fact that her health had been compromised. She pointed the finger at the respondent to say that her health had been bad and that it had been detrimentally impacted by the actions specifically of the employer and seemed to want to make sure that the tribunal brought that under consideration.

And the interesting time span around all of this. As I said, the event that kicks everything off is in October 2023. We're then into the absence starting at the end on 29 October. The formal absence meeting took place at the claimant's home on 10 January. There was a number of absence meetings that took place. There were occupational health attendances. But the dismissal was on 5 September 2024.

The employee, or the claimant, contacted the Labour Relations Agency in January 2025. So, by my reckoning, by January 2025, the claim was already outside of the time frame at that point.

And early conciliation certificates are issued in January and then latterly against the second respondent, the line manager, in March. And key, then, the ET1 is lodged on 31 January 2025.

And the judge points out in the decision then that there was a delay from the last act of discrimination for a period of six months and 24 days. That was the time period.

The key aspect of this seems to have been two things. One, there was a delay in the claimant bringing the claim. The claimant alleges, "Well, look, I have various health issues and complaints". The judge had noticed that the claimant had not been hospitalised between the last act of the discrimination and the lodgement of the ET1. And the judge made a comment to say that the claimant had made a conscious decision to prioritise her health over pursuing a tribunal claim.

And then, I think, it led back to where the evidence from the claimant was that she had obtained legal advice as far back as in July 2023 from a solicitor near where she lived. There was an issue over the fees that the solicitor had advised that it would cost in order to bring a claim. So, there were various factors there.

In my experience, I think where there's legal advice or there's legal advice being sought, it does change the mindset of the tribunal and the judge somewhat.

But clearly, a position of a lengthy case being brought out of time. And I think that the overriding factor here was that the judge was saying, "There wasn't a hospital admission between the date whenever you really could have brought your claim and the time that you had brought it". And it just wasn't the grounds in order to support an extension.

Maybe I'll just quote slightly from it because I did find this interesting. But the judge did say in the decision that the onus is on the tribunal to establish if it is just and equitable to extend time. The comment was, "The time limits in tribunal claims are strictly enforced, and there's no presumption that a tribunal should extend time".

If you're bringing a case out of time in the tribunal, you really probably do need to have those extenuating circumstances to be able to justify your request for the tribunal to extend it. You should never be proceeding on the basis of saying, "Well, I can put this in late, and the tribunal will accept it". From our audience as regards to practitioners and HR advisers, there's comfort to be taken in relation to it.

I suppose my overriding concern around the decision is the sort of . . . And again, look, evidence never properly tested as regards cross-examination, so I'm taking a health check in relation to that. But the allegation is that there were some concerning comments that were made, and certainly at the onset and the outset of the procedure, you could possibly see why the position did end up as to where it got to. I think if it had been dealt with in a better way at the start, it might have been unavoidable.

Christine: Yeah. So, I think it's a bit of a cautionary tale for claimants. Yes, prioritising your health is a good thing, but be aware that it may well lose you the chance to bring that tribunal claim. But as you say, comfort can be drawn for our HR audience that judges do really look at it quite forensically, even looking at what dates were you in hospital, did that cross over with your tribunal deadline, etc.

And I think every claimant thinks that their circumstances are exceptional. And of course, they're very important to them. But the judges take a big step back, don't they, Seamus, and really look at it and think, "Well, no, actually. I think you probably could have brought this claim".

I think talking to the LRA, talking to a solicitor, that's all kind of red flags that you do know what the procedure is, isn't it?

Seamus:  Yes. And I think interestingly . . . I know we'll come to the AI point in our third case review, but in a case that I was involved in, that was another point on cross-examination that was raised with the claimant about if they have access to the internet. They said that they didn't. And I remember even the judge asking around, "Is there a local library near you? Because the library will provide internet services".

This information around tribunal time limits is available online, on Advice NI or Advice Space on the Equality Commission website, to remind you of your time limits. The tribunal website, I think, also points it out. Labour Relations Agency guidance certainly covers it off as well.

And there is an aspect that there's an expectation, I think, that as a claimant, you will research and you will carry out your investigations in and around that.

I've certainly been in the case where that has been an issue that's been brought to the attention of the tribunal. I think even at one point they asked if the person had a smartphone in order to be able to access the internet.

But you always have to take these things . . . specifically if there's a discrimination claim as part of the overall claim, you have to take into consideration what the disabilities would be and the limitations around that.

Certainly, I think the technology aspect is something that is there. And a lot of these case management preliminary hearings that you attend now, there's a reminder to self-represented claimants about the resources that are available out there to assist.

Christine:  Brilliant. Thanks very much, Seamus. We'll move on to our second case. Gosia, if you could just put up the slide there. This is number two, Preshur v DHL Supply Chain. And it's the caveat that we hope we're not butchering the name Preshur. It's a Northern Irish pronunciation, so apologies if we're incorrect. But Seamus, what's the story behind this case then?

Seamus:  Well, again, another local case here in Northern Ireland. This was a case of Preshur v DHL Supply Chain. I think there were actually two respondents, DHL Supply Chain and DHL Services Limited. But in essence, against DHL.

This was another preliminary . . . or sorry, it wasn't preliminary hearing on this one. It was a full case that ran. The hearing was just in February of this year, 16 to 18 February. And the judgement was issued very quickly after that on 27 March 2026.

And I think if anyone gets an opportunity, it's certainly worthwhile having a read at the decision. It is an interesting decision. I think as some of the tags that Legal-Island put up around the interesting aspects of this, this was certainly a fiery individual, I think, is probably the way of putting it. I hope I'm not talking out of turn there, but when you read the decision itself, you can see that the judge makes specific comments around this.

The basics were that Mr Preshur had brought claims for constructive dismissal and disability discrimination. There was a series of internal investigations and disciplinary actions that had been taken by the employer.

The job of the tribunal here was really to assess whether the employer's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of the contract of employment and whether the claimant, then, had been subjected to disability discrimination. So a classic constructive dismissal claim, Christine.

The advice is always that constructive dismissal claims are difficult claims to be successful with as a claimant. And part of the problem is that, unlike in an unfair dismissal case where you are trying to establish almost that the onus is on the employer to establish that the termination was fair, on a constructive dismissal case, it's the job of the claimant, of the employee bringing the case, to satisfy a tribunal that there was a fundamental, irrevocable breach of the employment contract.

You have to establish and show that that breach was such a significant breach that it enabled an employee or a claimant to resign from their employment and rely on that breach.

They are complex cases because then you also want to have . . . once you're able to establish what your breach is . . . And that's the first question I always try to work out whenever I'm presented with a constructive dismissal claim. "Well, what's the alleged breach here? And then when did you resign?" Time is of the essence. You have to resign at the time of the breach. If you delay, it can prove futile.

Another interesting aspect of this case was that . . . I think you'd mentioned it in the initial outing on the case. It was this secret job offer that the claimant had. And it turned out that . . . the claimant resigned around 8 November, but had a job offer on 7 November.

And it's always one of those ones when you're taking instructions where your toes will curl up into your shoes to say, "Oh, you're bringing a constructive dismissal case, but you waited until you got a job offer, or you had a job offer before you resigned".

Generally, then, I look to the genuineness, and again to look at, "What is the breach that's been alleged here? And have you resigned timely, almost immediately, whenever the breach took place?" If somebody's waited around and got another job offer, it can be an interesting point that the tribunal will take under consideration, which they did in this case itself.

So, in the constructive dismissal claim then, the tribunal essentially found that despite there being multiple disciplinary and investigatory steps that had been taken, the employer's conduct hadn't amounted to a fundamental breach of the contract itself.

And there were criticisms in the judgement around the procedural steps of the employer. Certainly, they're described as imperfect, that they weren't perfect, but it wasn't sufficient enough to demonstrate conduct that would be so unreasonable that the claimant was entitled to resign and treat the contract as terminated.

It's back to this point of it really does need to be a . . . it's a high threshold. It's a high bar to get across and beat. If you think of doing the high jump and each stage of the bar going up and up and up. In tribunal cases, the tribunal really do need to be satisfied that such was the breach that you were entitled to resign. And that will be what the key facts of the case focus on.

And then we turn to the disability discrimination side. Also, the tribunal rejected the claimant's disability discrimination allegations. And they said on the evidence before it that the tribunal couldn't find that the treatment that the claimant had was actually linked or causally linked to his disability in the way that it was required under the legislation.

They said that there was no discrimination or evidence of unfavourable treatment because of the disability rather than just the workplace issues that were there and were at hand.

Around the disability, the claimant alleged that he had ADHD, and he said that this resulted in uncontrollable episodes of frustration. One of those episodes of frustration was when he appeared to be being questioned by the . . . Again, I should say the claimant was self-represented at the hearing. And during one of the stages of the hearing, the judge was maybe putting some pressure on the claimant in terms of asking questions and investigating the claim. The claimant threw his head up and used language that would have been sort of inappropriate or would have been considered to be inappropriate.

It doesn't say it in the document, but I expect, and my suspicion is, that he was challenged about that. And the claimant alleged that this was all part of his disability, and that these were things that he couldn't control.

Very interestingly, the judgement went on, then, to say that that happened on the first day of the hearing. But on the subsequent days of the hearing, there was no repeat of any of those actions. Almost as if once the claimant had been challenged around those behaviours, he did have control of it, that he was able to stop and to cease it.

And in Paragraph 52 of the judgement, the tribunal notes that the claimant reported these difficulties with aggression to a psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist accepted these reports as accurate. Although they could not, of course, be confined to evidence.

But it goes on to say, "However, the tribunal also notes, with interest, that once this behaviour was challenged, throughout the second and third days of the tribunal hearing, the claimant was able, without any apparent difficulty, to conduct himself without any swearing or aggression. No incidents of aggression or swearing were noted during the second and third days of the hearing. The claimant's practice of swearing and being aggressive appears to be something which the claimant is able to control".

And this is the point around direct evidence in a tribunal. Sometimes when you're a practitioner and you're sitting at the desk beside counsel, or you're dealing with the case yourself, your head's down in the notebook, and you're taking your notes, and you're listening to everything that's said. But sometimes if you sit at the back of the hearing room, you can really get an eye for how the tribunal are seeing and perceiving the evidence that's given before them.

I think that's a classic example of what a judge sees when a claimant is sitting before them and the types of things that the tribunal will take into consideration.

Interesting, and some might say brave, on a disability discrimination claim to make those sorts of comments in a judgement. But I mean, the job of the tribunal is to hear the evidence and consider and weigh up the evidence, to put weight on to the evidence that's before them. And this is clearly a matter that the panel felt was important and important enough to record within their decision.

Christine: Yeah, I was always surprised, Seamus . . . Sorry to interrupt there. I was always surprised just how much they read into people's body language, the little nuances they pick up. A good witness is a fantastic thing, someone that can present themselves really well, but you've also sat . . . I have certainly sat in tribunals thinking, "This witness statement is great", and when someone's on the stand, it all falls to pieces because they just don't come across as compelling.

I think until you're actually in the room, you don't understand just how much the panels really do pick up on, like personalities and body language and whether they're getting vibes off people that they think, "I'm not feeling that you're trustworthy here".

I think this is a really good example of that. And as you say, fairly surprising that the tribunal chose to go down that route, a risky one for them, but . . .

Seamus:  Yeah. I mean, I remember early on in my legal career . . . I don't think that I was qualified that long. We're going back to the days of Longbridge House, before the tribunal moved to the Gasworks. I remember I had a case where the claimant alleged that he could neither read nor write. I was acting on behalf of the employer.

There was an issue over handwritten notes during the case, and there was a page that was passed around. And I remember the claimant taking the page and reading the handwriting on the page.

Now, this would be a case, I would say, that certainly there was a limited level of reading and handwriting with the claimant, but the claimant swore in evidence. And we forget about that sometimes. It is sworn evidence that is given to a tribunal panel. The evidence was that he was unable, and he was at pains to make clear that he was unable to read or write.

I remember the judge commenting at the time, "You have an ability to read that?" and the case unravelled as a result of that. Again, that's just from the eyes, from watching and listening to how people present and those sorts of things. So it's always interesting.

But yeah, an important case just around, I think, the constructive dismissal aspect and about that really high threshold to prove your fundamental breach.

Christine: Brilliant. And just mindful of the time here, Seamus, we'll move on to our last case. Gosia, if you could just flash up the name of that case again for everyone to see. So, it's Hegarty v Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service. Another 2026 case. This year again, Seamus. What's the background on this one?

Seamus:  Look, I think this is an important case and one that we're going to see a lot more of. Again, this is a preliminary hearing. Again, it is on time frames and whether the claim was brought inside the correct time frame in order for the tribunal to have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Case hearing took place in November 2025, judgement on 6 February 2026. Again, long-serving employee. Lots of interesting parts of this case. The overall case is the matter of John Hegarty v Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service. Claim brought outside the time limits. Preliminary hearing in order to determine whether it should be accepted.

The claimant had long service with the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, and he then alleged essentially that the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments in relation to a promotion process. It was almost like a recruitment process.

Claimant had dyslexia. And the allegation was that Fire and Rescue Service had failed to implement any reasonable adjustments for a Station Commander recruitment interview. This was the role that he'd applied for. And the claimant alleged that the failure to provide reasonable adjustments had led to his placement on the merit list to be lower than if reasonable adjustments had been implemented at the time, and that the ranking essentially had adversely affected his prospects with employment.

The claim was lodged out of time, and it was outside the statutory time limit. And there was an application that it was just and equitable to extend that time limit.

The issue of the disability discrimination wasn't discussed, as ultimately, they made a decision that there wasn't a substantive or a good enough circumstance in order to extend the time frame. There was a rejection of the application.

But the claimant, as I said, had been diagnosed with dyslexia. There were reasonable adjustments in place in respect of his role from 2019. And there was a medical assessment that had taken place in 2018.

For the relevant sort of recruitment process that they were doing in 2024, the claimant had contacted HR to confirm adjustments but was informed that they wouldn't be implemented. And then in July 2024, he was notified that he was 27th out of 35 candidates that had applied for the role. So quite a competition, plenty of applications for the role.

Ultimately, there's a finding that the statutory time limit couldn't have been extended. And within that, again, back to this interesting point about knowledge and about seeking legal advice. One of the things that certainly was of interest to the tribunal was that the claimant was a trade union representative and had provided advice and had assisted other colleagues in relation to employment matters. And I think there was certainly a position that there was an element of knowledge around, or there should have been an element of knowledge around the time frame.

What the judgement says is that his experience as a trade union member who had advised other members in cases rendered his claim to ignorance on the points unreliable. Essentially, the claimant was saying, "I wasn't aware these time limits had to apply".

And again, another interesting fact was that he engaged with the Equality Commission and the Labour Relations Agency in advance of this claim. He'd actually received warnings from the Equality Commission . . . and I'm assuming these were written warnings that were provided as part of the Equality Commission's paperwork . . . to say that there were strict statutory time limits and that they could be as short as three months. He received warning in relation to it.

The really interesting part of this case is around the fact that, as part of the preliminary hearing, the claimant was directed to lodge a witness statement. And the claimant, during the hearing, admitted that he had used AI, I think it was ChatGPT, to assist in relation to the drafting of the witness statement.

In Paragraph 38 of the judgement, it says that, "Another difficulty with the claimant's evidence was that he admitted to having used AI to assist him to prepare his witness statement. The tribunal find this to be a very disturbing development. As by rule, witness statements are adopted as the claimant's own sworn testimony". And I think this is an obvious point that we're going to see coming forward.

There was reference in the case to Dornan v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I think there had been reference in a prior case management to that case. I'm assuming they had used AI to get some information around that and, within the witness statement, had included various legal submissions, references to legislation and the case law.

And really, the witness statement was just, I assume . . . without having been part of the hearing, but I'm assuming that the request for the witness statement from the tribunal was around the simple facts and matters of why it was . . .

Christine:  The story.

Seamus:  What were the reasons for that, and what were the extenuating circumstances that you were relying upon? Instead, it would appear that the tribunal got a bit of a written legal submission around the points of case law and legislation in it. So, I think possibly the eye of the panel was drawn to the fact of the statement and if there was a question asked.

It brings us back to the point of what should the witness statement be? And after a case management preliminary hearing, the tribunal issued a record of proceedings, and the record of proceedings is quite detailed in relation to the witness statement.

From memory, it does talk around that it should be in chronological order. It should be leading back to your legal and factual issues that have been prepared usually in advance, or after the case management preliminary hearing. And that's your sort of working document that you're working from, and you're building your witness statement around that.

It is sworn evidence. You and I were just talking before this about back in the day at early qualification, the expectation of your client was that you prepared up the witness statement for them, they read it, they approved it, they'd give you instructions on it, and that's how it was prepared. And very much the position is now that the witness statement is a job for the witness. The legal adviser or the representative can provide advice and assistance.

And I'm not saying that you can't provide assistance on a witness statement. You can assist in topping and tailing and giving your advice maybe around, if it's a discrimination case, "You need to put a bit more in there in relation to your injury to feelings aspect", and that sort of stuff. But you can't write the evidence.

And just going back to that point that you mentioned on the previous case there, it is a point of where sometimes the witness statement does not match the witness whenever they come to give the evidence, whether it's the language that's used within the witness statement or how the witness statement is presented.

But the witness statement should be somebody giving their evidence in the same way that they would normally give it in a hearing.

Now, obviously, it needs to be in paragraphs. It needs to be numbered. It should refer to the bundle of documents that are provided and the support that you have from the evidence. But sometimes you see very highfalutin, fancy language in witness statements, and when the witness goes up to give evidence, it's fairly apparent that they have not written the witness statement.

I hope I'm not coming across as in any way derogatory around that. But they're sort of key signs as to how the person presents and speaks and delivers their evidence in cross-examination is not matching of how the witness statement has been presented.

They've all had those awkward moments where you can see a panel . . . And again, the panel are providing weight to the evidence that's given. It puts doubt in the mind of the panel, I think, if you've scenarios . . .

But I suspect that going forward and the wider use of AI and AI tools, that this is something that will come to the attention of the panel, particularly in and around self-represented claimants and respondents.

Christine:  Yeah. And just interestingly, Seamus, this is one case where the judge took a dim view of AI use. There was a case that same month or maybe the month before, Humphrey v Martin, and the judge took the view of, "Well, that's fine". He actually mentioned legal representatives sometimes assist in the writing and it's for the witness to read that statement and confirm that it is their words and it is true. So, he viewed AI in that way.

We're getting two contradictory things coming out of the tribunals. But they're starting to look at it, so it's definitely very worth your while keeping an eye on that and really making sure that if you're giving a witness statement as an HR person or a manager, that it's in your words and it's exactly how you speak. These tools are great for giving you maybe a steer, but they're definitely not a substitute for your own brain.

Brilliant. Thank you very much, Seamus. I'm just very aware of the time now. We got through those cases really well. The time absolutely flew.

Thank you all very much for attending today. And thank you for helping out with the polls at the start. They are for Annual Review, which is returning this November. You can join us for a full day of expert legal updates, practical workplace guidance, and insights into issues shaping HR across Northern Ireland.

It's on 5 November at the Crowne Plaza Belfast, or you can tune in online live. Me and Seamus will be there, so we'd love to see you.

The tickets are on sale now at an early bird rate. You can click on the link that Gosia is dropping into the chat now, and you can find out more about that.

You can also head over to the Legal-Island Hub to get your 14-day free trial to access all the quality materials on there. As I said at the start, we've opened up the cases we've discussed today. They're free for a limited time, so please click through and have a look at them.

Seamus and I are taking a break during July. But if you're going to miss us, you can catch up with us on Spotify, Amazon Music, or Apple Music. And if you're really keen to get in touch, you can give us a message on LinkedIn. It's always great to hear from you. So please do that.

But all that's left to say is thanks very much, Seamus. Thanks to everyone for attending. And everyone, enjoy the Friday. Thank you.

Sponsored by: