Foy v Moy Park Ltd [2006] NIFET 363_03FET (15 June 2006)

Foy v Moy Park Ltd [2006] NIFET 363_03FET (15 June 2006)

The respondent had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent acts of sectarian harassment, including implementing and distributing anti-harassment policies, providing training to managers and advisers, and responding promptly to complaints. No further reasonably practicable steps were identified....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] NIFET 363_03FET
Parties
Claimant: Francis Foy; Respondent: Moy Park Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
15 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Fair Employment Tribunal Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Religious Discrimination, Vicarious Liability, Statutory Defence, Harassment in the Workplace
Employment Law Anti Discrimination Law Religious Discrimination Vicarious Liability Statutory Defence Harassment in the Workplace

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Foy

Claimant

Moy Park Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Fair Employment Tribunal Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is vicariously liable for the act of religious discrimination committed by its employee under Article 36(1) of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (FETO)
  2. 2 Whether the respondent can rely on the statutory defence under Article 36(4) of FETO

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent acts of sectarian harassment, including implementing and distributing anti-harassment policies, providing training to managers and advisers, and responding promptly to complaints. No further reasonably practicable steps were identified. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to rely on the statutory defence under Article 36(4) of FETO and was not vicariously liable for the act of discrimination committed by its employee.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed