X v Ministry of Defence
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Gillen LJ |
| Judgment Date | 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] NICA 44 |
| Date | 17 April 2015 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral citation No. [2015] NICA 44 Ref:
GIL9557
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
17/04/2015
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL FROM THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
DATED 19 MAY 2014
_________
BETWEEN:
X
Appellant/Claimant;
-and-
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Respondent/Respondent.
________
Before: GIRVAN LJ, COGHLIN LJ and GILLEN LJ
________
GILLEN LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
[1] This is an appeal from a decision of an Industrial Tribunal on 19 May 2014
whereby the Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s claim of unfair dismissal arising out
of his dismissal by the respondent on 20 April 2012.
Background facts
[2] The Tribunal hearing this matter made an order pursuant to the
Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations (Northern
Ireland) 2005 prohibiting the publication in Northern Ireland of identifying matter in
a written publication available to the public in relation to the appellant’s identity, or
any of the witnesses in the case or of relevant locations. We shall invite counsel to
address us on the issue as to whether such an order is still appropriate. In the
interim this judgment has been anonymised.
[3] The respondent employed the appellant as a civilian guard for 9 years
5 months between November 2002 and April 2012.
2
[4] His terms and conditions of employment permitted the appellant to submit
travel claims for payment for additional hours attendance (overtime at the normal
place of work or elsewhere) and short term detached duty (where for example he
attended courses at other locations).
[5] The appellant’s line manager (Mr M) on three occasions – 15 April 2008, 20
May 2009 and finally 18 November 2010--had drawn the attention of employees to
the fact that travel claims for additional hours attendance could only be claimed on
PPPA Form 1904 and not on PPPA Form 305. PPPA Form 305 was only to be used
for short term detached duty. The correspondence informed employees that this
was because additional hours attendance was a taxable payment whereas payments
for short term detached duty were not. If employees claimed travel for additional
hours attendance on the wrong form it is in effect tax evasion which, the line
manager informed employees, could result in dismissal. The letter of 18 November
2010 advised that all staff were to check that they had complied with the current
policy rules and the guidance notes as to how to claim additional hours attendance
and detached duty payments. It advised that this was a one-time opportunity to
rectify any genuine mistakes made and that any further discrepancies found during
audit checks would be forwarded to the Fraud Investigations Unit for action.
[6] On 10 May 2011 Mr M received confirmation from the PPPA by telephone
that the appellant had contacted that body to rectify travel claims for overtime being
claimed on PPPA Form 305 instead of PPPA Form 1904.
[7] On 18 May 2011, in the course of an interview at Palace Barracks, the
appellant contended that he had contacted PPPA in December 2010 and was
informed there were no problems with his claims.
[8] Following this meeting, by letter dated 23 May 2011, the appellant was
suspended on the grounds that he was suspected of making fraudulent claims in
accordance with the Policy Rules and Guidance for Dealing with Major Discipline
Offences.
[9] Thereafter the line manager carried out an investigation into the appellant’s
travel claims. The appellant was further interviewed on 18 August 2011 and was
questioned about a number of journeys he had made from his home to his place of
work in relation to which he had submitted a travel claim. These journeys related to
dates between 23 January 2008 and 13 June 2010. At that meeting the appellant
contends that he explained that insofar as those journeys attracted additional hours
attendance payment by way of overtime, no part of the journey was on or near his
normal route from his home to his work. He argued that he had taken alternate
routes from his normal route for the purposes of security. In addition he had made
some journeys within the camp complexes and had charged for these. The appellant
was represented by his Trade Union representative at this meeting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Harris v Chefette Restaurants Ltd
...Laws of England, 5th Edition, Vol. 40 at paragraph 628. 9 The Tribunal also considered the following cases: 1 X v. Ministry of Defence[2015] NICA 44; 2. Rogan v. South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust[2009] NICA 47; 3. Orr v. Milton Keynes[2011] ICR 704; 4. Turner v. East Midlands Train......
-
Nugent vs Royal Mail Group Limited
...379 EAT) See also : Rogan v South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust [2009] NICA 47 and the more recent case of X v Ministry of Defence [2015] NICA 44. These decisions emphasise that a tribunal hearing a claim of unfair dismissal has to focus on the reasonableness or otherwise of the empl......