McConaghy v Lamont & Anor [2005] NIIT 3078_04 (19 August 2005)

McConaghy v Lamont & Anor [2005] NIIT 3078_04 (19 August 2005)

The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment from the first-named respondent. The tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear claims for holiday pay and lying week payments as they were lodged out of time and no evidence was provided to show it was not reasonably practicable to bring them within the time limit. The second-named respondent is not liable as the first-named respondent is not insolvent.

Citation
[2005] NIIT 3078_04
Parties
Claimant: Alex McConaghy; First Named Respondent: William Lamont; Second Named Respondent: Department for Employment & Learning Redundancy Payments Branch
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
19 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Employment/redundancy Claim / Final Decision
Outcome
claim partly allowed
Legal Topics
Redundancy Payment, Jurisdiction, Insolvency, Time Limits for Claims
Employment Law Redundancy Payment Jurisdiction Insolvency Time Limits for Claims

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alex McConaghy

Claimant

William Lamont

First Named Respondent

Department for Employment & Learning Redundancy Payments Branch

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment/redundancy Claim / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy
  2. 2 Whether the first or second-named respondent is liable to pay redundancy, holiday or lying week payments
  3. 3 Whether claims for holiday pay and lying week payments were lodged within the statutory time limit

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment from the first-named respondent. The tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear claims for holiday pay and lying week payments as they were lodged out of time and no evidence was provided to show it was not reasonably practicable to bring them within the time limit. The second-named respondent is not liable as the first-named respondent is not insolvent.

Court Disposition

claim partly allowed

Orders

  • First-named respondent to pay redundancy payment of £2,295.00 to claimant
  • Claims for holiday pay and lying week payments dismissed for want of jurisdiction