McKearney v Arthur Cox (Discrimination - Age Breach of Contract Unauthorised Deduction of Wages Unfair Dismissal) [2021] NIit 17570_20it (25 May 2021)

McKearney v Arthur Cox (Discrimination - Age Breach of Contract Unauthorised Deduction of Wages Unfair Dismissal) [2021] NIit 17570_20it (25 May 2021)

The claimant's ignorance of the right to claim age discrimination was reasonable given her lack of employment law experience and financial circumstances; she acted promptly upon learning of the possibility. The prejudice to the respondent is minimal, while refusal would cause significant hardship to the claimant. It is just and equitable to permit the amendment.

Citation
[2010] IRLR 327
Parties
Claimant: Elizabeth McKearney; Respondent: Arthur Cox
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
25 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Preliminary Judgment on Amendment Application
Outcome
Claimant permitted to amend ET1 to include claim of age discrimination
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Redundancy, Breach of Contract, Unauthorised Deduction of Wages, Unfair Dismissal, Amendment of Claim, Time Limitation
Employment Law Discrimination Law Age Discrimination Redundancy Breach of Contract Unauthorised Deduction of Wages Unfair Dismissal Amendment of Claim +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth McKearney

Claimant

Arthur Cox

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Preliminary Judgment on Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend her ET1 to include a claim of age discrimination
  2. 2 Whether the time limit for bringing an age discrimination claim should be extended on just and equitable grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's ignorance of the right to claim age discrimination was reasonable given her lack of employment law experience and financial circumstances; she acted promptly upon learning of the possibility. The prejudice to the respondent is minimal, while refusal would cause significant hardship to the claimant. It is just and equitable to permit the amendment.

Court Disposition

Claimant permitted to amend ET1 to include claim of age discrimination

Orders

  • Claim amended to include direct and indirect age discrimination in redundancy selection procedure
  • Respondent to lodge amended response within 28 days of Preliminary Judgment