Warwick v Hygiene Plus Ltd ... [2011] NIIT 01197_11IT (02 December 2011)

Warwick v Hygiene Plus Ltd ... [2011] NIIT 01197_11IT (02 December 2011)

The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the first respondent due to inconsistencies in evidence, irregularities in contracts, failure to act in accordance with contract terms, and periods without salary, concluding the alleged contract was a sham or discharged.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] NIIT 01197_11IT
Parties
Claimant: Christopher Warwick; Respondent: Hygiene Plus Ltd (in liquidation); Respondent: Department for Employment and Learning
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
02 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Redundancy Payment, Holiday Pay, Employment Status, Contract of Employment, Director as Employee
Employment Law Company Law Redundancy Payment Holiday Pay Employment Status Contract of Employment Director as Employee

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Warwick

Claimant

Hygiene Plus Ltd (in liquidation)

Respondent

Department for Employment and Learning

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was an employee of Hygiene Plus Ltd
  2. 2 Entitlement to redundancy payment and holiday pay

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the first respondent due to inconsistencies in evidence, irregularities in contracts, failure to act in accordance with contract terms, and periods without salary, concluding the alleged contract was a sham or discharged.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Department not liable for redundancy payment under Article 201
  • Department not liable for holiday pay under Article 227