McNamee v KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administ... [2015] NIIT 00796_15IT (21 August 2015)

McNamee v KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administ... [2015] NIIT 00796_15IT (21 August 2015)

The claimant was within the scope of the protective award, the employer failed to pay remuneration due under the award, and although the claim was not brought within the primary time-limit, it was not reasonably practicable to do so until the protective award was made. The claim was brought within a further period considered reasonable by the tribunal, with no prejudice to the respondent or the Department.

Citation
[2015] NIIT 00796_15IT
Parties
Claimant: Michael McNamee; Respondent: KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administration)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
21 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Liability Determination Under Article 220 of the Employment Rights (northern Ireland) Order 1996
Outcome
Claim under Article 220 of the Employment Rights Order 1996 is well-founded.
Legal Topics
Protective Award, Collective Redundancy, Time Limits, Remuneration for Protected Period
Employment Law Protective Award Collective Redundancy Time Limits Remuneration for Protected Period

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael McNamee

Claimant

KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Liability Determination Under Article 220 of the Employment Rights (northern Ireland) Order 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was within the scope of the relevant protective award
  2. 2 Whether the employer failed to pay remuneration pursuant to the protective award
  3. 3 Whether the Article 220 claim was made within the statutory time-limit

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was within the scope of the protective award, the employer failed to pay remuneration due under the award, and although the claim was not brought within the primary time-limit, it was not reasonably practicable to do so until the protective award was made. The claim was brought within a further period considered reasonable by the tribunal, with no prejudice to the respondent or the Department.

Court Disposition

Claim under Article 220 of the Employment Rights Order 1996 is well-founded.

Orders

  • Amount due to the claimant to be determined at a further hearing if necessary.