Dobson v David and Ruth Coates [2015] NIIT 2087_12IT (02 July 2015)

Dobson v David and Ruth Coates [2015] NIIT 2087_12IT (02 July 2015)

The first named respondents failed in their statutory obligation to facilitate the election of employee representatives and to conduct meaningful consultation as required by TUPE Regulations 2006. The consultation that occurred was partial and primarily at the initiative of the claimants. The award of five weeks’ pay was just and equitable in the circumstances. No new grounds were raised in the review applications; all matters had been addressed in the original decision.

Citation
[2015] NIIT 2087_12IT
Parties
Claimant: Elaine Frances Dobson; Claimant: Stephanie Steenson; Claimant: Helen McAuley; Claimant: Christina Bond; Claimant: Linda Jacqueline Annett; Claimant: Lena Doris Kelly; Claimant: Nicola Sands; Respondent: David and Ruth Coates; Respondent: Philip Martin; Respondent: Elizabeth Anderson
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
02 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Industrial Tribunal Decision / Post Judgment Review Application
Outcome
applications for review refused
Legal Topics
TUPE Consultation Requirements, Failure to Consult Employees, Review of Tribunal Decision
Employment Law TUPE Consultation Requirements Failure to Consult Employees Review of Tribunal Decision

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

Parties

Elaine Frances Dobson

Claimant

Stephanie Steenson

Claimant

Helen McAuley

Claimant

Christina Bond

Claimant

Linda Jacqueline Annett

Claimant

Lena Doris Kelly

Claimant

Nicola Sands

Claimant

David and Ruth Coates

Respondent

Philip Martin

Respondent

Elizabeth Anderson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Industrial Tribunal Decision / Post Judgment Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal erred in finding greater failure to consult by the first named respondents under TUPE Regulations 2006
  2. 2 Whether the contract for sale of the business was void ab initio due to alleged non-disclosures and misrepresentations
  3. 3 Whether the award of five weeks’ pay to each claimant was just and equitable

Ratio Decidendi

The first named respondents failed in their statutory obligation to facilitate the election of employee representatives and to conduct meaningful consultation as required by TUPE Regulations 2006. The consultation that occurred was partial and primarily at the initiative of the claimants. The award of five weeks’ pay was just and equitable in the circumstances. No new grounds were raised in the review applications; all matters had been addressed in the original decision.

Court Disposition

applications for review refused

Orders

  • Application for review by second and third named respondents refused.
  • Application for review by first named respondents refused.