Judgment: 2010-02-10 · Court archive

High Court restrains Permanent TSB from dismissing College Green branch manager pending trial

High Court · [2010] IEHC 36

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Christopher Giblin (Plaintiff)
  • Miss Justice Laffoy
What

High Court restrains Permanent TSB from dismissing College Green branch manager pending trial

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • College Green
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Miss Justice Laffoy held that Giblin had shown a strong case that the process leading to a January 2010 dismissal decision was inconsistent with his contractual right to fair procedures. The injunction does not decide whether the allegations against him were true or whether dismissal was ultimately justified.

The High Court has restrained Permanent TSB from dismissing its College Green branch manager Christopher Giblin until his challenge to the bank's disciplinary process can be determined at trial.

Miss Justice Laffoy held that Giblin had shown a strong case that the process leading to a January 2010 dismissal decision was inconsistent with his contractual right to fair procedures. The injunction does not decide whether the allegations against him were true or whether dismissal was ultimately justified.

Giblin had worked for the bank for almost 30 years when he was placed on special leave with full pay in August 2009 while accounts and transactions associated with him were investigated. The bank expressly said at that stage that the leave was precautionary and was not disciplinary action.

The investigation later expanded substantially. Giblin received more than 50 pages of queries which he said contained 907 questions, followed in November by 26 pages containing what he described as 340 specific allegations. His solicitors argued that, once formal allegations had been made, the same Investigation Team should not continue both investigating and deciding whether serious misconduct had occurred.

The bank rejected that position. On January 14, 2010, after Giblin and his representatives did not attend a further meeting, the Investigation Team found serious misconduct and decided he should be dismissed, subject to an appeal.

The High Court found a strong arguable case that the process had become confused about the Investigation Team's role. It also considered the speed of the dismissal decision capable of suggesting pre-judgment, given the volume of allegations.

The court separately found a strong case that the proposed appeal breached the bank's own procedures by shortening the appeal period and limiting the appeal to sanction rather than allowing review of the misconduct finding.

Damages would not adequately compensate Giblin for lost salary, pension consequences, reputation and career damage. The bank may, however, continue to keep him on special leave with full pay pending trial or further order.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review