Kelly v KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administ... [2015] NIIT 02226_15IT (26 November 2015)

Kelly v KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administ... [2015] NIIT 02226_15IT (26 November 2015)

The claimant was within the scope of the protective award, the employer failed to pay remuneration due, 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 given the claimant's ignorance of entitlement and lack of prejudice to the respondent or Department.

Citation
[2015] NIIT 02226_15IT
Parties
Claimant: Gregory Nicholas Kelly; Respondent: KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administration)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
26 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Final Merits Determination
Outcome
claim allowed in part
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

Gregory Nicholas Kelly

Claimant

KPL Contracts Ltd (In Administration)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Merits Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is 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 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, 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 given the claimant's ignorance of entitlement and lack of prejudice to the respondent or Department.

Court Disposition

claim allowed in part

Orders

  • Claim under Article 220 of the Employment Rights Order 1996 is well-founded; amount due to claimant to be determined at a further hearing if necessary.
  • All other claims withdrawn and dismissed.