Hunter v KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administ... [2015] NIIT 01171_15IT (22 October 2015)

Hunter v KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administ... [2015] NIIT 01171_15IT (22 October 2015)

The claimant was within the scope of the protective award, the employer failed to pay remuneration due, and it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the claim within the primary time limit. The claim was brought within a further reasonable period, given the claimant's ignorance of the law and lack of prejudice to the respondent or Department.

Citation
[2015] NIIT 01171_15IT
Parties
Claimant: Michael Hunter; Respondent: KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administration)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
22 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Final Merits Decision on Liability Under Article 220 of the Employment Rights (northern Ireland) Order 1996
Outcome
claim upheld
Legal Topics
Protective Award, Collective Redundancy, Statutory Time Limits, Remuneration for Protected Period
Employment Law Protective Award Collective 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

Michael Hunter

Claimant

KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Merits Decision on Liability Under Article 220 of the Employment Rights (northern Ireland) Order 1996

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was within the scope of the protective award, the employer failed to pay remuneration due, and it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the claim within the primary time limit. The claim was brought within a further reasonable period, given the claimant's ignorance of the law and lack of prejudice to the respondent or Department.

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.