Mullan v Paul Joseph Hughes [2009] NIIT 1402_08IT (12 August 2009)

Mullan v Paul Joseph Hughes [2009] NIIT 1402_08IT (12 August 2009)

The dismissals of both claimants were for conduct-related reasons and, though harsh, fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. The disciplinary process was fair. Mr Mullan's conduct as foreman in condoning unsafe practice constituted a fundamental breach of contract, disentitling...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] NIIT 1402_08IT
Parties
Claimant: Paul Mullan; Claimant: Paul Joseph Hughes; Respondent: FK Lowry Piling Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
12 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal Unfair Dismissal and Notice Pay / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Claims for unfair dismissal by both claimants dismissed. Mr Mullan's claim for notice pay dismissed. Mr Hughes' claim for notice pay upheld.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Notice Pay, Gross Misconduct, Disciplinary Procedure, Employment Contract, Health and Safety at Work
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Notice Pay Gross Misconduct Disciplinary Procedure Employment Contract Health and Safety at Work

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Mullan

Claimant

Paul Joseph Hughes

Claimant

FK Lowry Piling Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal Unfair Dismissal and Notice Pay / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissals of Mr Mullan and Mr Hughes were unfair within the meaning of Article 130(4) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
  2. 2 Whether the claimants were entitled to pay in lieu of notice or whether their conduct amounted to gross misconduct or repudiatory breach disentitling them to notice pay

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissals of both claimants were for conduct-related reasons and, though harsh, fell within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. The disciplinary process was fair. Mr Mullan's conduct as foreman in condoning unsafe practice constituted a fundamental breach of contract, disentitling him to notice pay. Mr Hughes' conduct, while unsafe, did not breach any written rule or amount to repudiatory conduct, so he was entitled to notice pay.

Court Disposition

Claims for unfair dismissal by both claimants dismissed. Mr Mullan's claim for notice pay dismissed. Mr Hughes' claim for notice pay upheld.

Orders

  • Mr Paul Mullan's claims for unfair dismissal and pay in lieu of notice are dismissed.
  • Mr Paul Hughes' claim for unfair dismissal is dismissed.