[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> McKee v McKee [2003] NIIT 2469_02 (24 November 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2003/2469_02.html Cite as: [2003] NIIT 2469_02, [2003] NIIT 2469_2

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 
THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS

CASE REF: 2469/02

APPLICANT: Caroline Mary Josephine McKee

RESPONDENT: Dr Henry McKee

DECISION

The tribunal dismisses the applicant's claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.

Appearances:

The applicant was represented by Mr N Martin, of Counsel, instructed by F J Orr, Solicitors

The respondent was represented by Mr R Greene, of Counsel, instructed by Karen Fox, Solicitor

1. These reasons are given in summary form.
2. The applicant claimed unfair dismissal, breach of contract and failure to provide written reasons for dismissal. The respondent denied the applicant's claims. In the course of the hearing the applicant abandoned her claim for failure to provide written reasons for dismissal without objection.
3. The tribunal made the following findings:-

(a) The respondent employed the applicant from 1998 to 2 June 2003 as a practice manager.

(b) The applicant was married to the respondent and carried out her employment duties and responsibilities from an office in the matrimonial home.

(c) In July 2002 the parties were experiencing difficulties in their marriage. On 31 July 2002 the applicant obtained a medical certificate to refrain from work for 4 weeks from her GP. On 2 August 2002 the applicant obtained, ex parte, a Non-molestation and Occupational Order applicable to the matrimonial home.

(d) The respondent removed a computer used by the applicant and files from her office in the matrimonial home on 3 August 2002. The applicant returned to the matrimonial home on 8 August 2002 and only became aware that items had been removed from the office in the matrimonial home by 10 August 2002.

(e) The tribunal is not persuaded that the respondent dismissed the applicant on or by 10 August 2002. In so concluding the tribunal was influenced by the following matters:-

(i) The respondent did not explicitly dismiss the applicant on or by 10 August 2002.

(ii) The respondent did not remove "the tools of her trade" when he removed a computer and documentation on 3 August 2002.

(iii) The reason advanced by the respondent for the removal of the computer and some documents is reasonable in the circumstances.

(iv) The applicant did not believe that she had been dismissed on or by 10 August 2002.

(v) The applicant was certified as unfit for work from 31 July to 28 August 2002.

(f) The tribunal is not persuaded that the respondent dismissed the applicant on 2 September 2002. In so concluding the tribunal was influenced by the following matters:-

(i) The respondent did not explicitly dismiss the applicant on 2 September 2002.

(ii) The parties did not agree that the money paid by the respondent to the applicant on 2 September 2002 was maintenance.

(iii) The quantum of money paid to the applicant was equivalent to her monthly salary.

(iv) The respondent asserts that the monthly amount paid to the applicant was her salary.

(g) The applicant's employment with the respondent terminated on 2 June 2003.

(h) The breach of contract claim relates to the alleged unfair dismissal and the tribunal is not persuaded that there was a breach of contract.

(i) Accordingly the applicant's claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract are dismissed.

Chairman:

Date and place of hearing: 21 and 22 August, 3 October, 24 November 2003, 27 and 28 April, 18, 19, 22 and 23 November 2004, 25, 26, 27 and 28 January, 11, 14 February, and 4 March 2005, Belfast

Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: