The High Court has ordered ESB International Limited to continue paying an engineer’s contractual remuneration while his wrongful-dismissal action proceeds. It also restrained the company from giving effect to his termination and limited how it can assign someone else to his contractual duties.
The orders are interlocutory: they apply pending the trial and do not decide whether the dismissal was lawful. The court did not order the engineer’s reinstatement or direct payment of pension contributions. Any replacement must be appointed on terms that would allow the engineer to return to his duties as Consultant Level 1 if a court makes such an order after a full hearing.
The engineer had worked for the company since 1992. His employment contract allowed termination on one month’s written notice. The company instead dismissed him for alleged serious misconduct under its disciplinary procedure, relying on his conduct in making complaints about colleagues. Those complaints followed an internal process in which earlier complaints of bullying were not upheld; the court noted that no finding had been made that those complaints were malicious or vexatious.
The company’s disciplinary hearing manager recommended dismissal after finding serious misconduct and a breakdown of trust and confidence. The engineer did not appeal that recommendation. The company then told him his employment would end on 17 January 2013. He began court proceedings the previous day and sought orders to prevent the termination, continue his pay and preserve the possibility of returning to work.
At this interlocutory hearing, the engineer argued that the disciplinary process was fundamentally flawed. The company disputed that and opposed the injunction. The judge concluded that the engineer had met the required “strong case” test, citing concerns that the disciplinary process examined the documents and manner of his complaints without considering their truth or the basis of his grievance. The judge also noted confusion over which internal appeal process applied to his earlier complaints.
The court found that the engineer’s financial circumstances meant damages might not be an adequate remedy while the case was pending. It refused to require the company to let him return to work, citing the history of the dispute and the balance of convenience. It also found that the roughly eight-week interval before proceedings began did not bar equitable relief. The injunctions were made on the basis of counsel’s undertaking to facilitate an expedited trial.