Veitch v Red Sky Group Ltd [2010] NIIT 1184_08IT (24 March 2010)

Veitch v Red Sky Group Ltd [2010] NIIT 1184_08IT (24 March 2010)

The claimant was not found to be disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 due to insufficient medical evidence of long-term adverse effects. However, the respondent's repeated loss of grievance, disciplinary, and medical information, failure to address pay discrepancies, and heavy-handed HR practices constituted a fundamental breach of contract, justifying the claimant's constructive dismissal. The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages for uniform, which were not contractually agreed.

Citation
[2010] NIIT 1184_08IT
Parties
Claimant: Jason Veitch; Respondent: Red Sky Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
24 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claimant succeeded in constructive dismissal and unauthorised wage deduction claims; disability discrimination claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Disability Discrimination, Unauthorised Wage Deductions, Written Employment Particulars, Itemised Pay Statements
Employment Law Constructive Dismissal Disability Discrimination Unauthorised Wage Deductions Written Employment Particulars Itemised Pay Statements

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Veitch

Claimant

Red Sky Group Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the claimant a disabled person within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995?
  2. 2 Was the claimant treated less favourably for a reason relating to disability?
  3. 3 Did the respondent fail to make reasonable adjustments?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not found to be disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 due to insufficient medical evidence of long-term adverse effects. However, the respondent's repeated loss of grievance, disciplinary, and medical information, failure to address pay discrepancies, and heavy-handed HR practices constituted a fundamental breach of contract, justifying the claimant's constructive dismissal. The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages for uniform, which were not contractually agreed.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeded in constructive dismissal and unauthorised wage deduction claims; disability discrimination claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay £12,676.68 to claimant for unfair dismissal compensation.
  • Respondent to repay £154.00 to claimant for unauthorised wage deductions.