McCracken v Hovis Ltd [2017] NIIT 00726_17IT (18 September 2017)

McCracken v Hovis Ltd [2017] NIIT 00726_17IT (18 September 2017)

The claimant was not disabled for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 at the relevant time, as his medical condition did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities. The dismissal was for misconduct, specifically the claimant's repeated refusal to comply with a reasonable management instruction, and was within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. However, the circumstances did not justify summary dismissal, so the claimant was entitled to statutory notice pay.

Citation
[2017] NIIT 00726_17IT
Parties
Claimant: David McCracken; Respondent: Hovis Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
18 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed in respect of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal; claimant awarded statutory notice pay.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Statutory Notice Pay
Employment Law Discrimination Law Disability Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Statutory Notice Pay

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

Parties

David McCracken

Claimant

Hovis Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was disabled for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for misconduct
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to statutory notice pay

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not disabled for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 at the relevant time, as his medical condition did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities. The dismissal was for misconduct, specifically the claimant's repeated refusal to comply with a reasonable management instruction, and was within the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. However, the circumstances did not justify summary dismissal, so the claimant was entitled to statutory notice pay.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed in respect of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal; claimant awarded statutory notice pay.

Orders

  • Claim of unlawful disability discrimination dismissed
  • Claim of unfair dismissal dismissed