Harte v Encirc Limited & Ors [2016] NIIT 00037_15IT (19 April 2016)

Harte v Encirc Limited & Ors [2016] NIIT 00037_15IT (19 April 2016)

The Tribunal found that the claimant failed to establish facts from which it could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that she was treated less favourably on the grounds of sex or political opinion. The respondents provided a convincing non-discriminatory explanation for the treatment, namely operational needs and the claimant's conduct. There was insufficient evidence of a discernible political opinion or ongoing discrimination beyond the relevant dates. The claims were therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2016] NIIT 00037_15IT
Parties
Claimant: Avril Harte; Respondent: Encirc Limited; Respondent: John Breen; Respondent: Brian Cosgrove
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
19 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Fair Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Political Opinion Discrimination, Trade Union Activities, Burden of Proof, Time Limits
Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Political Opinion Discrimination Trade Union Activities Burden of Proof Time Limits

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Avril Harte

Claimant

Encirc Limited

Respondent

John Breen

Respondent

Brian Cosgrove

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Fair Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was unlawfully discriminated against on the ground of sex
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was unlawfully discriminated against on the ground of political opinion (specifically relating to trade union rights)
  3. 3 Whether the claims were presented within the statutory time limits or should be allowed out of time on a just and equitable basis

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the claimant failed to establish facts from which it could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that she was treated less favourably on the grounds of sex or political opinion. The respondents provided a convincing non-discriminatory explanation for the treatment, namely operational needs and the claimant's conduct. There was insufficient evidence of a discernible political opinion or ongoing discrimination beyond the relevant dates. The claims were therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed