Warner v Mid Ulster and South Tyrone As... Derek Short Ivor Paisley [2013] NIIT 01399_12IT (02 October 2013)

Warner v Mid Ulster and South Tyrone As... Derek Short Ivor Paisley [2013] NIIT 01399_12IT (02 October 2013)

The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent due to serious procedural and substantive flaws in the investigatory, disciplinary, and appeal processes. The dismissal was not for making a protected disclosure or for victimisation. Compensation is awarded with a 10% reduction for contributory fault.

Citation
[2013] NIIT 01399_12IT
Parties
Claimant: David Warner; First Respondent: Mid Ulster and South Tyrone Association for Single Homeless Ltd; Second Respondent: Derek Short; Third Respondent: Ivor Paisley
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
02 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal Unfair Dismissal and Related Claims / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claim for unfair dismissal against the first respondent upheld; all other claims dismissed; claims against second and third respondents dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Protected Disclosure (whistleblowing), Victimisation, Disciplinary Procedure, Mitigation of Loss, Contributory Fault
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Protected Disclosure (whistleblowing) Victimisation Disciplinary Procedure Mitigation of Loss Contributory Fault

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Warner

Claimant

Mid Ulster and South Tyrone Association for Single Homeless Ltd

First Respondent

Derek Short

Second Respondent

Ivor Paisley

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal Unfair Dismissal and Related Claims / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent for conduct-related reasons
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal was by reason of protected disclosure (whistleblowing)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent due to serious procedural and substantive flaws in the investigatory, disciplinary, and appeal processes. The dismissal was not for making a protected disclosure or for victimisation. Compensation is awarded with a 10% reduction for contributory fault.

Court Disposition

Claim for unfair dismissal against the first respondent upheld; all other claims dismissed; claims against second and third respondents dismissed.

Orders

  • First respondent to pay the claimant £23,119.60 compensation for unfair dismissal, reduced by 10% for contributory fault.
  • No compensation for loss of earnings after 1 January 2013 due to claimant's medical condition unrelated to dismissal.