Northgate HR Ltd v Mercy

Northgate HR Ltd v Mercy

Mr Mercy did not have standing to claim a protective award for failure to provide information to employee representatives; only the representatives themselves could do so. The Employment Tribunal erred in law by treating bad faith as a necessary condition for unfairness in redundancy selection; a glaring inconsistency, even in good faith, could amount to unfairness. The EAT was entitled to remit the unfair dismissal issue to a differently constituted tribunal.

Parties
Appellant/respondent: Northgate HR Ltd; Respondent/appellant: Nigel Mercy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Protective Award, Redundancy, Employee Consultation, Standing to Sue
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Protective Award Redundancy Employee Consultation Standing to Sue

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Northgate HR Ltd

Appellant/respondent

Nigel Mercy

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Mercy had standing to claim a protective award for failure to provide information under section 188(4) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its approach to the fairness of the redundancy selection process
  3. 3 Whether the EAT was correct to remit the unfair dismissal issue to a differently constituted tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Mercy did not have standing to claim a protective award for failure to provide information to employee representatives; only the representatives themselves could do so. The Employment Tribunal erred in law by treating bad faith as a necessary condition for unfairness in redundancy selection; a glaring inconsistency, even in good faith, could amount to unfairness. The EAT was entitled to remit the unfair dismissal issue to a differently constituted tribunal.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Mr Mercy's appeal on the protective award is dismissed
  • Northgate's cross-appeal on remittal and unfair dismissal is dismissed