Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
That the applicant's application was not presented within the specified time limit laid down by the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and that the tribunal is unanimously of the view that it is not just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case for the tribunal to consider this complaint despite the fact that it is out of time. Accordingly, the applicant's�claims for equal pay and for sex discrimination set out in his application to the tribunal are dismissed.
The respondents was represented by Mr Francis O'Reilly, Barrister at Law, instructed by The�Central Services Agency.
10.1 That the applicant knew from the time he acted up for Mrs Skeffington in the Spring of 1996 that he was on a different pay level to her. He knew at that time that his grade was Grade 2 and her's was Grade 3.
10.2 That the trade union agreement with the Health Authority only covered Grades 3, 4 and 5 and the applicant could not therefore benefit from that agreement.
10.3 That the applicant was on protected pay between 1990 to 1995. The only period for which the applicant could arguably claim that he was on the same grade as Mrs�Skeffington and therefore possibly entitled to benefit from the Enderby case and the union agreement was between January 1987 and January 1990. This latter date being the date on which the applicant's protected pay came into play.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.