Cassidy v Colm Joseph McGurk and Patrick... Omega Mechanical Services Limi... Colm Joseph McGurk and Patrick... Omega Mechanical Services Limi... [2012] NIIT 00183_11IT (28 February 2012)

Cassidy v Colm Joseph McGurk and Patrick... Omega Mechanical Services Limi... Colm Joseph McGurk and Patrick... Omega Mechanical Services Limi... [2012] NIIT 00183_11IT (28 February 2012)

The claimant’s contract was tainted by illegality up to and including 1 October 2010 due to his knowing participation in a scheme to evade tax and national insurance by accepting cash payments and failing to ensure proper deductions. As a result, the contract is unenforceable and all claims arising from it, including unfair dismissal and related statutory entitlements, are dismissed.

Citation
[2012] NIIT 00183_11IT
Parties
Claimant: Aaron Sean Martin Cassidy; First Respondent: Colm Joseph McGurk and Patrick Pearse Moore t/a McGurk and Moore; Second Respondent: Omega Mechanical Services Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
28 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegality of Contract, Unfair Dismissal, Transfer of Undertakings (tupe), Holiday Pay, Notice Pay, Obligation to Inform and Consult
Employment Law Illegality of Contract Unfair Dismissal Transfer of Undertakings (tupe) Holiday Pay Notice Pay Obligation to Inform and Consult

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aaron Sean Martin Cassidy

Claimant

Colm Joseph McGurk and Patrick Pearse Moore t/a McGurk and Moore

First Respondent

Omega Mechanical Services Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the claimant’s contract of employment tainted by illegality?
  2. 2 If so, for what period?
  3. 3 Did a service provision change occur under the TUPE Regulations?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant’s contract was tainted by illegality up to and including 1 October 2010 due to his knowing participation in a scheme to evade tax and national insurance by accepting cash payments and failing to ensure proper deductions. As a result, the contract is unenforceable and all claims arising from it, including unfair dismissal and related statutory entitlements, are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • All claims by the claimant are dismissed on the basis of illegality.