The underlying and main issue in this case was the manner by which the defendant sought to terminate the plaintiff’s employment.

The plaintiff, a French national, was appointed ‘Senior Director of Global Service Delivery and EA Site Lead reporting to John Pompei’. He made an ex-parte application refraining the defendant from taking any further steps to implement his dismissal and refraining it from appointing any other person to his role until the hearing of the interlocutory injunction application.

The plaintiff subsequently received a letter stating the respondent company sought to withdraw the letter of termination, that the company would not be proceeding further in respect of the dismissal claim therein, and instead gave notice of termination in accordance with the plaintiff’s contractual entitlements pursuant to Clauses 12 and 14 of his contract.

Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the court must conclude from the failure to give a reason for the termination that the no-fault termination was cloaked “in new and relatively see-through clothes”.

The Court held the plaintiff had established a prima facie case that his contractual rights for a proper investigatory, disciplinary and appeal process were compromised and considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to relief concerning an abandoned disciplinary process.

It held that although the plaintiff reported to Mr. Pompei and may have been interviewed for the position by Mr. Pompei, the contract was executed without any reference to the authority of Mr. Pompei to terminate the contract. It remained for the defendant to establish that the plaintiff knew and acknowledged Mr. Pompei’s right to terminate the contract on behalf of the defendant.

The court was satisfied, based on the evidence, that the plaintiff did not agree that the contract could be terminated by anyone other than by the company acting in accordance with its constitution and in compliance with the Companies Act 2014. The plaintiff remained a director of the defendant company and during the hearing of the application no step was taken to remove the plaintiff as a director of the company. The defendant submitted that damages will be an adequate remedy to the plaintiff if the interlocutory reliefs were refused. More significantly, it did not allege that it had lost confidence or trust in the plaintiff.

The court considered that the plaintiff’s reputation may be irreparably damaged if he succeeded in establishing that the purported no-fault termination by letter had been interpreted by prospective employers as equivalent to a disciplinary measure for misconduct. Given the impact that the loss of his employment will have on his personal, family and professional life, the court opined that the defendant did not establish that damages were an adequate remedy for the plaintiff.

Therefore, the court granted an interlocutory order requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s salary and emoluments as they fall due pending further order at the trial of the within proceedings. The court also granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from recruiting or hiring or appointing any person to replace the plaintiff or to fill the role of senior director, global service delivery and EA Ireland Site Lead pending further order at the trial of the within proceedings.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/0b2c16cd0e688e1780258389002ec217?OpenDocument