Pop v Camden Group LimitedRobin ServiceGary MaloneWolf EhrkeHolly Lewis [2016] NIIT 02638_15IT (06 October 2016)

Pop v Camden Group LimitedRobin ServiceGary MaloneWolf EhrkeHolly Lewis [2016] NIIT 02638_15IT (06 October 2016)

The tribunal found that the claimant failed to prove facts from which it could conclude that race discrimination or harassment occurred. The evidence showed that the claimant was not singled out or treated less favourably because of his race or nationality. The dismissal was due to the claimant's attitude following...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] NIIT 02638_15IT
Parties
Claimant: Paul Pop; Respondent: Camden Group Limited; Respondent: Robin Service; Respondent: Gary Malone; Respondent: Wolf Ehrke; Respondent: Holly Lewis
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
06 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Harassment, Dismissal, Burden of Proof, Comparators
Employment Law Discrimination Law Race Discrimination Harassment Dismissal Burden of Proof Comparators

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Pop

Claimant

Camden Group Limited

Respondent

Robin Service

Respondent

Gary Malone

Respondent

Wolf Ehrke

Respondent

Holly Lewis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was subjected to race discrimination and/or harassment by the respondents
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's dismissal constituted an act of race discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the claimant failed to prove facts from which it could conclude that race discrimination or harassment occurred. The evidence showed that the claimant was not singled out or treated less favourably because of his race or nationality. The dismissal was due to the claimant's attitude following a performance issue and not related to his race.

Court Disposition

claims dismissed