Spence v Fin Engineering Limited (In Ad... [2014] NIIT 185_14it (05 August 2014)

Spence v Fin Engineering Limited (In Ad... [2014] NIIT 185_14it (05 August 2014)

The claimant's ignorance of his entitlement to make a protective award complaint was reasonable given the lack of general public awareness and his significant health difficulties, making it not reasonably practicable to comply with the primary time-limit. The further period of delay was reasonable in the unique circumstances of the case.

Citation
[2014] NIIT 185
Parties
Claimant: Michael Alan Spence; Respondent: Fin Engineering Limited (in Administration)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
05 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Protective Award Complaint / Final Decision
Outcome
complaint upheld; protective award granted
Legal Topics
Protective Award, Collective Redundancy, Consultation Requirements, Time Limits for Complaints
Employment Law Protective Award Collective Redundancy Consultation Requirements Time Limits for Complaints

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

Parties

Michael Alan Spence

Claimant

Fin Engineering Limited (in Administration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Protective Award Complaint / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent failed to comply with collective consultation requirements under Article 216 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's complaint was presented within the statutory time limits or if an extension was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's ignorance of his entitlement to make a protective award complaint was reasonable given the lack of general public awareness and his significant health difficulties, making it not reasonably practicable to comply with the primary time-limit. The further period of delay was reasonable in the unique circumstances of the case.

Court Disposition

complaint upheld; protective award granted

Orders

  • The claimant’s protective award complaint is well-founded.
  • A protective award is made in respect of the claimant.