McCann v Vector Facilities Management Wallace Contracts (Northern Ir... Vector Facilities Management Wallace Contracts (Northern Ir... [2012] NIIT 01248_11IT (11 July 2012)

McCann v Vector Facilities Management Wallace Contracts (Northern Ir... Vector Facilities Management Wallace Contracts (Northern Ir... [2012] NIIT 01248_11IT (11 July 2012)

The tribunal refused to strike out the unfair dismissal claim against the second respondent as further evidence was required from all parties to determine the facts and legal position regarding the transfer. The tribunal granted the amendment to include a claim for failure to consult, holding that the previous refusal was an interim case management order, not a final decision, and that both respondents should answer the allegations for proper case disposal.

Citation
[2012] NIIT 01248
Parties
Claimant: John Gerard McCann; Claimant: Jonathan McCann; Respondent: Vector Facilities Management; Respondent: Wallace Contracts (Northern Ireland) Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
11 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal / Interim Ruling on Applications During Hearing
Outcome
Both applications refused; interim orders made for case management.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Transfer of Undertakings (tupe), Information and Consultation Duties, Case Management, Amendment of Claims
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Transfer of Undertakings (tupe) Information and Consultation Duties Case Management Amendment of 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Gerard McCann

Claimant

Jonathan McCann

Claimant

Vector Facilities Management

Respondent

Wallace Contracts (Northern Ireland) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal / Interim Ruling on Applications During Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim of unfair dismissal against the second respondent should be struck out on the basis that the claimants’ employment had not transferred to the second respondent at 1 April 2011
  2. 2 Whether the claimants’ claim should be amended to include a claim against the second respondent for alleged failure to comply with information and consultation duties under Regulation 13 of TUPE and SPCR

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal refused to strike out the unfair dismissal claim against the second respondent as further evidence was required from all parties to determine the facts and legal position regarding the transfer. The tribunal granted the amendment to include a claim for failure to consult, holding that the previous refusal was an interim case management order, not a final decision, and that both respondents should answer the allegations for proper case disposal.

Court Disposition

Both applications refused; interim orders made for case management.

Orders

  • Application to strike out unfair dismissal claim against second respondent refused.
  • Application to amend claim to include failure to consult against second respondent granted.