Mahoney v S&M Meats Ltd [2007] NIIT 1120_05 (12 March 2007)

Mahoney v S&M Meats Ltd [2007] NIIT 1120_05 (12 March 2007)

The claimant was dismissed by the first respondent a year before the business transfer for reasons unrelated to the transfer; therefore, there was no transfer of the claimant's contract under TUPE to the second respondent.

Citation
[2007] NIIT 1120_05
Parties
Claimant: Joseph Mahoney; First Named Respondent: S&M Meats Limited; Second Named Respondent: Malcolm Johnston (trading as S&M Meats Limited)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
12 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal Pre Hearing Review / Pre Hearing Review Decision
Outcome
Second respondent dismissed from the case; claimant's claim against first respondent may proceed.
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertakings, Unfair Dismissal, Employment Contracts
Employment Law Transfer of Undertakings Unfair Dismissal Employment Contracts

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Mahoney

Claimant

S&M Meats Limited

First Named Respondent

Malcolm Johnston (trading as S&M Meats Limited)

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal Pre Hearing Review / Pre Hearing Review Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's contract of employment transferred to the second respondent under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE)
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent is liable for the claimant's alleged unfair dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was dismissed by the first respondent a year before the business transfer for reasons unrelated to the transfer; therefore, there was no transfer of the claimant's contract under TUPE to the second respondent.

Court Disposition

Second respondent dismissed from the case; claimant's claim against first respondent may proceed.

Orders

  • Order of 27 November 2006 joining the second respondent set aside
  • Second respondent dismissed from the case