Armstrong v Chief Superintendent Gary Whit... [2010] NIIT 1146_08IT (15 March 2010)

Armstrong v Chief Superintendent Gary Whit... [2010] NIIT 1146_08IT (15 March 2010)

The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably because of the protected act. Procedural defects in the disciplinary process did not amount to victimisation, and the sanction imposed was consistent with treatment of others in similar circumstances. The protected act played no significant part in the respondents' actions.

Citation
[2010] NIIT 1146_08IT
Parties
Claimant: Catherine Diane Armstrong; Respondent: Chief Superintendent Gary White; Respondent: Police Service of Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
15 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Sex Discrimination, Bullying and Harassment, Disciplinary Procedures
Employment Law Discrimination Law Victimisation Sex Discrimination Bullying and Harassment Disciplinary Procedures

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Diane Armstrong

Claimant

Chief Superintendent Gary White

Respondent

Police Service of Northern Ireland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was victimised by the respondents contrary to Article 6 of the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976
  2. 2 Whether disciplinary sanction and injury on duty award constituted victimisation
  3. 3 Whether procedural breaches in disciplinary process amounted to victimisation

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably because of the protected act. Procedural defects in the disciplinary process did not amount to victimisation, and the sanction imposed was consistent with treatment of others in similar circumstances. The protected act played no significant part in the respondents' actions.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed