McCullough v Lee Lavelle Paul Johnston Belfast City Sight Seeing Ltd Department for Employment and ... [2011] NIIT 00497_10IT (01 November 2011)

McCullough v Lee Lavelle Paul Johnston Belfast City Sight Seeing Ltd Department for Employment and ... [2011] NIIT 00497_10IT (01 November 2011)

The proceedings were dismissed because the claimant was absent without explanation, and the tribunal exercised its discretion under rule 27(5) not to adjourn but to dismiss the claim.

Citation
[2011] NIIT 00497_10IT
Parties
Claimant: Ciaran McCullough; Respondent: Lee Lavelle; Respondent: Paul Johnston; Respondent: Belfast City Sight Seeing Ltd; Respondent: Department for Employment and Learning
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
01 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Main Hearing; Dismissal for Non Appearance of Claimant
Outcome
Dismissed
Legal Topics
Wages, Holiday Pay, Notice Pay, Redundancy Pay, Statutory Guarantee, Dismissal for Non Appearance
Employment Law Wages Holiday Pay Notice Pay Redundancy Pay Statutory Guarantee Dismissal for Non Appearance

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ciaran McCullough

Claimant

Lee Lavelle

Respondent

Paul Johnston

Respondent

Belfast City Sight Seeing Ltd

Respondent

Department for Employment and Learning

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Main Hearing; Dismissal for Non Appearance of Claimant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to wages, holiday pay, notice pay, and redundancy pay from the respondents
  2. 2 Whether the Department for Employment and Learning is liable as statutory guarantor for employment debts
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings should be dismissed due to the claimant's absence

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were dismissed because the claimant was absent without explanation, and the tribunal exercised its discretion under rule 27(5) not to adjourn but to dismiss the claim.

Court Disposition

Dismissed

Orders

  • The proceedings are dismissed.