Mathers v Walker [2007] NIIT 1619_05 (2 May 2007)

Mathers v Walker [2007] NIIT 1619_05 (2 May 2007)

The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract by the respondents; the letter of 10 June 2005 did not amount to constructive dismissal. The evidence did not support the claim of sex discrimination, as there was no less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. The respondents' actions were not intended to force the claimant to resign, and the confusion over sick pay was explained satisfactorily.

Citation
[2007] NIIT 1619_05
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Gillian Mathers; Respondents/claimants: Ewing Walker and Neil Walmsley T/A Greenmount Veterinary Clinic
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
02 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Decision After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claims for unfair/constructive dismissal and sex discrimination dismissed; respondents' counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Unfair Dismissal, Sex Discrimination, Sick Pay Entitlement, Maternity Leave
Employment Law Discrimination Law Constructive Dismissal Unfair Dismissal Sex Discrimination Sick Pay Entitlement Maternity Leave

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gillian Mathers

Claimant/respondent

Ewing Walker and Neil Walmsley T/A Greenmount Veterinary Clinic

Respondents/claimants

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Decision After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was constructively and/or unfairly dismissed
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of sex
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to additional sick pay

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract by the respondents; the letter of 10 June 2005 did not amount to constructive dismissal. The evidence did not support the claim of sex discrimination, as there was no less favourable treatment on grounds of sex. The respondents' actions were not intended to force the claimant to resign, and the confusion over sick pay was explained satisfactorily.

Court Disposition

Claims for unfair/constructive dismissal and sex discrimination dismissed; respondents' counterclaim dismissed.