Mr Leonard made an application for an interlocutory injunction against the HSE seeking:

• An injunction restraining the HSE from appointing a Paramedic Supervisor at the National Ambulance Service Loughlinstown Co. Dublin; and
• An injunction directing the HSE to pay Mr Leonard the salary and other entitlements (up until the date of the trial) that were provided for under his employment contract.

The first relief had been granted on an interim basis at an earlier date.

What happened?

The plaintiff was a Paramedic Supervisor within the National Ambulance Service (NAS). In November 2021, the plaintiff was promoted to Business Community Manager. Accordingly, he submitted a Form HR106 on 21 January 2022, which HSE employees are required to complete when leaving the HSE or when transferring to another payroll division of the HSE. The plaintiff then began his new role as Business Community Manager in James Connolly Memorial Hospital Blanchardstown (JCMH) on 7 February 2022. He resigned from this position 15 days later describing the move as a mistake.

The plaintiff submitted that on 9 February, he enquired as to whether he could return to his prior position. It was further maintained by the plaintiff that on the 14 February he was granted approval to resume his position as Paramedic Supervisor, subject to release from his contract with JCMH. The following day, the plaintiff terminated his contract with JCMH with immediate effect, and requested that his HR106 be withdrawn. The defendant confirmed it was withdrawn. The plaintiff averred that it was agreed that he would report for duty on 7 March 2022 with his service preserved. However, on 24 February, the plaintiff was informed that his HR106 had to be processed. He was subsequently notified that he was not to report for duty on 7 March. On 22 March the plaintiff discovered that applications had been invited for his roster.

The plaintiff argued that the conduct of the defendants by accepting the withdrawal of the HR106 form on 15 February and rostering him for duty, was inconsistent with the proposition that he resigned his employment and/or had not been employed by the defendant since 7 February 2022. The plaintiff contended that he would not have terminated his contract of employment with JCMH but for the many assurances from individuals in the NAS that he could return to his previous position of Paramedic Supervisor. He delineated that in the event that there was any resignation by completing the HR106 form then that resignation was withdrawn and accepted by the defendant on 15 February. As such, the plaintiff argued that he had a legitimate expectation that his contract persisted without a break in service.

The defendants, however, argued that as a matter of fact and law the plaintiff’s contract of employment as Paramedic Supervisor terminated on 6 February 2022. The defendant stated that it could only fill the position in strict compliance with the provisions of the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004 (the 2004 Act). Moreover, the defendants maintained that as a result of a condition of its recruitment licence under the 2004 Act, any appointment of employees was to be conducted in accordance with codes of practice issued by the Commission for Public Service Appointments (CPSA). Thus, the defendants contended that members of management did not have discretion to appoint individuals to posts – including any person who had resigned and sought to return to their previous post.

What did the High Court decide?

The High Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had established not only a fair question for trial but, on the basis of the express representations made to him, a strong case that he was likely to succeed at the hearing of the action. In looking at the adequacy of damages, the Court held that damages would not address Mr Leonard's issues with losing his former position if he was unable to reclaim his position in the event he was successful at hearing given that the position would be filled by someone else. The Court was satisfied that the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting an interlocutory injunction. As such an order was granted restraining the defendant from appointing any person to the position of Paramedic Supervisor save on terms that would preserve the plaintiff’s contractual entitlements in the event of the plaintiff being successful herein. The Court also directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff all salary and other benefits to which he was entitled under his contract of employment, until the trial of the action.

Key takeaway

Care should be taken in providing assurances to an employee regarding taking up or returning to a role, in particular where there are certain recruitment/appointment procedures associated with such a process.

Full case here: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/62fbf0474a3e8158b4add5a7