McCauley v Pace Telecom Ltd [2010] NIIT 5193_09IT (14 December 2010)

McCauley v Pace Telecom Ltd [2010] NIIT 5193_09IT (14 December 2010)

The claimant was unfairly dismissed and unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of sex during employment and in redundancy selection; the respondent’s selection process was neither fair nor reasonable, failed to comply with basic requirements, and no adequate explanation was provided for less favourable treatment. The tribunal lacked jurisdiction for the age discrimination claim due to procedural requirements.

Citation
[2010] NIIT 5193_09IT
Parties
Claimant: Angela McCauley; Respondent: Pace Telecom Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
14 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim upheld in part; age discrimination claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claims upheld.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Sex Discrimination, Redundancy, Statutory Dismissal Procedure, Jurisdiction, Compensation
Employment Law Discrimination Law Unfair Dismissal Sex Discrimination Redundancy Statutory Dismissal Procedure Jurisdiction Compensation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela McCauley

Claimant

Pace Telecom Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the unfair dismissal claim was out of time
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for redundancy

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was unfairly dismissed and unlawfully discriminated against on grounds of sex during employment and in redundancy selection; the respondent’s selection process was neither fair nor reasonable, failed to comply with basic requirements, and no adequate explanation was provided for less favourable treatment. The tribunal lacked jurisdiction for the age discrimination claim due to procedural requirements.

Court Disposition

Claim upheld in part; age discrimination claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; unfair dismissal and sex discrimination claims upheld.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay claimant total compensation of £23,778.51