Morrison v Supervalu Centre [2009] NIIT 1565_08IT (29 May 2009)

Morrison v Supervalu Centre [2009] NIIT 1565_08IT (29 May 2009)

The tribunal determined that the issue of compliance with the statutory grievance procedure required substantive evidence and should be determined at a full merits hearing, not at a Pre-Hearing Review. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not acted unreasonably and declined to make a costs order. The first and second respondents were dismissed as parties, as only the third respondent was the employer.

Citation
[2009] NIIT 1565_08IT
Parties
Claimant: Queenie Morrison; Respondent: Supervalu Centre; Respondent: Supervalu Strabane; Respondent: Kavanagh Retailing (NI) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Pre Hearing Review
Outcome
Pre-Hearing Review adjourned; first and second respondents dismissed; no costs order made against claimant.
Legal Topics
Statutory Grievance Procedure, Sex Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Constructive Dismissal, Costs Application
Employment Law Discrimination Law Statutory Grievance Procedure Sex Discrimination Disability Discrimination Constructive Dismissal Costs Application

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

Parties

Queenie Morrison

Claimant

Supervalu Centre

Respondent

Supervalu Strabane

Respondent

Kavanagh Retailing (NI) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Pre Hearing Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant complied with Article 19 of the Employment Rights (NI) Order 2003 regarding written grievance and waiting period
  2. 2 Whether a costs order should be made against the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the first and second respondents should be dismissed from the case

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal determined that the issue of compliance with the statutory grievance procedure required substantive evidence and should be determined at a full merits hearing, not at a Pre-Hearing Review. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not acted unreasonably and declined to make a costs order. The first and second respondents were dismissed as parties, as only the third respondent was the employer.

Court Disposition

Pre-Hearing Review adjourned; first and second respondents dismissed; no costs order made against claimant.

Orders

  • The issue of compliance with Article 19 to be determined at a full merits hearing.
  • First and second respondents dismissed from the case.