McKernan v Mivan (No.1) Ltd (In Administr... [2015] NIIT 00794_15IT (19 August 2015)

McKernan v Mivan (No.1) Ltd (In Administr... [2015] NIIT 00794_15IT (19 August 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 until the protective award was made. The claim was brought within a further reasonable period, so the claim is well-founded under Article 220.

Citation
[2015] NIIT 00794_15IT
Parties
Claimant: Julie McKernan; Respondent: Mivan (No. 1) Ltd (In Administration)
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
19 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Liability Determination Under Article 220 of the Employment Rights (northern Ireland) Order 1996
Outcome
claim allowed
Legal Topics
Protective Award, Redundancy, Statutory Time Limits, Remuneration, Collective Consultation
Employment Law Protective Award Redundancy Statutory Time Limits Remuneration Collective Consultation

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie McKernan

Claimant

Mivan (No. 1) 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 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, 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 reasonable period, so the claim is well-founded under Article 220.

Court Disposition

claim allowed

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.