McEvoy v John Joseph Rice John J Rice and Company, Solic... [2011] NIIT 01278_11IT (22 December 2011)

McEvoy v John Joseph Rice John J Rice and Company, Solic... [2011] NIIT 01278_11IT (22 December 2011)

The tribunal found that the claimant’s dismissal and the respondents’ other actions were not motivated by her having made protected complaints of discrimination, but by her conduct (covertly removing documents, making groundless allegations, and the breakdown of trust and confidence). The reasons for dismissal and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] NIIT 01278_11IT
Parties
Claimant: Yvonne Elizabeth McEvoy; First Respondent: John Joseph Rice; Second Respondent: John J Rice & Company, Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
22 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal (employment) / Final Merits Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Victimisation, Sex Discrimination, Age Discrimination, Employment Rights, Burden of Proof, Professional Conduct
Employment Law Discrimination Law Unfair Dismissal Victimisation Sex Discrimination Age Discrimination Employment Rights Burden of Proof +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yvonne Elizabeth McEvoy

Claimant

John Joseph Rice

First Respondent

John J Rice & Company, Solicitors

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal (employment) / Final Merits Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was unlawfully victimised contrary to the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' failure to renew the claimant’s Practising Certificate was unlawful victimisation
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' refusal to act for the claimant and her husband in property transactions was unlawful victimisation

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the claimant’s dismissal and the respondents’ other actions were not motivated by her having made protected complaints of discrimination, but by her conduct (covertly removing documents, making groundless allegations, and the breakdown of trust and confidence). The reasons for dismissal and other actions were separable from the protected acts. No unlawful victimisation or unfair dismissal was established.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed