McCauley v Pace Telecom Ltd [2009] NIIT 5193_09IT (16 December 2009)

McCauley v Pace Telecom Ltd [2009] NIIT 5193_09IT (16 December 2009)

The proposed amendment constitutes a new claim of automatic unfair dismissal based on protected disclosures, not merely a relabeling of existing facts. The original Belfast claim did not plead facts supporting this new claim. The amendment is out of time, and no grounds for extending the time limit have been established. Even if it were not a new claim, the delay is unexplained and the prejudice to the respondent outweighs any hardship to the claimant, who retains other claims.

Citation
[2009] NIIT 5193_09IT
Parties
Claimant: Angela McCauley; Respondent: Pace Telecom Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
16 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal (pre Hearing Review) / Application to Amend Claim Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application to amend claim refused
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Protected Disclosure (whistleblowing), Amendment of Pleadings, Time Limits, Discrimination
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Protected Disclosure (whistleblowing) Amendment of Pleadings Time Limits Discrimination

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela McCauley

Claimant

Pace Telecom Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal (pre Hearing Review) / Application to Amend Claim Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be granted leave to amend her claim to include a complaint of detriment and dismissal for having made a protected disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendment constitutes a new claim of automatic unfair dismissal based on protected disclosures, not merely a relabeling of existing facts. The original Belfast claim did not plead facts supporting this new claim. The amendment is out of time, and no grounds for extending the time limit have been established. Even if it were not a new claim, the delay is unexplained and the prejudice to the respondent outweighs any hardship to the claimant, who retains other claims.

Court Disposition

Application to amend claim refused

Orders

  • Leave to amend the claim to include a complaint of detriment and dismissal for having made a protected disclosure is refused.