Lafferty v KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administ... [2015] NIIT 00932_15IT (22 July 2015)

Lafferty v KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administ... [2015] NIIT 00932_15IT (22 July 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 and was brought within a further reasonable period. The claim under Article 220 is well-founded.

Citation
[2015] NIIT 00932_15IT
Parties
Claimant: Damien Lafferty; Respondent: KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administration)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
22 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Claim / Liability Determination Under Article 220 of the Employment Rights (northern Ireland) Order 1996
Outcome
claim upheld
Legal Topics
Protective Award, Redundancy, Statutory Time Limits, Remuneration for Protected Period
Employment Law Protective Award Redundancy Statutory 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

Damien Lafferty

Claimant

KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Claim / 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 and was brought within a further reasonable period. The claim under Article 220 is well-founded.

Court Disposition

claim upheld

Orders

  • The claimant's claim under Article 220 of the Employment Rights Order 1996 is well-founded.
  • The amount due to the claimant will be determined during the course of a further hearing, if necessary.