McCarroll (Mary) and Northern Ireland Housing Executive
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Gillen J |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] NIQB 83 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 08 November 2012 |
| Year | 2012 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2012] NIQB 83
Ref:
GIL8597
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
08/11/12
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
________
BETWEEN:
MARY McCARROLL
Plaintiff;
-and-
NORTHERN IRELAND HOUSING EXECUTIVE
Defendant.
________
GILLEN J
The Claim
[1] In this matter the plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries, loss and
damage sustained by her allegedly by reason of the negligence and breach of
statutory duty and harassment of the plaintiff by the defendant its servants and
agents in course of the employment of the plaintiff between 12 May 2003 and 30
November 2009. In particular it is alleged that the plaintiff was subjected to
discrimination, harassment, embarrassment, differential treatment and stress by the
defendant culminating in her dismissal on 30 November 2009.
Background
Matters not in dispute
[2] A number of aspects of this case were common to both parties. It was
agreed:-
• The plaintiff commenced employment with the defendant on 12 May 2003
as a part-time Hostel Assistant at Greystones. The hostel consisted of 4
2
separately constructed houses on the same site. The first was used as an
office, and the others for accommodating persons who required housing
as a result for example of money problems, domestic abuse, homelessness
etc. It was accepted by all that prior to the difficulties that arose she had
been an excellent employee.
• Her duties included supervising the occupants of the houses who were
provided by the Housing Executive. Part of her duties was to receive
complaints from the individuals.
• She was a part-time worker for approximately 2 days per week.
• On 15 March 2004 Colm O’Loan (CO) was employed on the same basis on
a full-time job.
Matters in dispute
[3] A number of non-medical aspects of this case were in dispute and they largely
surrounded the relationship between the plaintiff and CO and how the defendant
had dealt with this. Problems started with CO and the plaintiff in or about 2005.
Essentially the plaintiff’s case was that she was advised by residents of matters that
led her to make a number of complaints about the manner in which CO carried out
his work. She considered that the attitude of her employers was to support him
almost unconditionally and to take no account of the concerns she had about the
manner in which he was carrying out his work. This had the effect of destroying her
confidence in the employer and in feeling that she was treated in an inferior way to
him. The end result was that primarily from in or about 2007 she and CO did not
communicate other than through the communication book at the hostel and when
she refused to be transferred to Ballymena in order to resolve the impasse this led to
disciplinary proceedings and eventually to her dismissal.
[4] The defendant’s case was in essence that it had looked into her complaints
against CO, dealt with them in a proper manner and when the plaintiff refused to
communicate with CO the smooth running of the hostel became untenable; hence
she was asked to transfer. When she declined to resume contact with CO or to
transfer disciplinary proceedings were instituted.
[5] On these matters I heard from the plaintiff and, on behalf of the defendant
Mrs Smyth the district manager in the Antrim area, Mr Murphy the Assistant
manager and Ita McCrory the personnel manager. The principle areas of contention
were as follows.
[6] First, in April 2005 the plaintiff submitted a complaint on behalf of a resident
Sheila Minford that CO had been conducting an inappropriate relationship with
Mrs Minford’s daughter e.g. giving her lifts both when he was on and off duty,
going for walks with her, not taking steps to avoid the young woman being in her
night attire when entering the house etc. There was a dispute as to the age of the
girl, the plaintiff asserting that she was 17 whereas Mr Murphy asserted that she was
18. In any event the plaintiff documented the complaint and informed the District
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Carragher (Patrick) v Dawson (Frank), Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and Very Reverend T Rafferty as Nominee of The Board of Governors of St Ronan's Primary School
...[95] A case in this jurisdiction where a similar claim was brought is the case of McCarroll v Northern Ireland Housing Executive [2012] NIQB 83. In this case Gillen J dismissed the plaintiff’s claim having applied the principles in the Hatton decision. It seems to me that this case is subst......