Judgment: 2015-10-22 · Court archive

High Court restrains Irish Pride Bakeries from dismissing manager pending full hearing

The interlocutory order preserves a former sales director’s employment and salary for now, while leaving the company free to terminate his contract on three months’ notice.

High Court · [2015] IEHC 665

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Conor Brennan (Plaintiff)
What

The interlocutory order preserves a former sales director’s employment and salary for now, while leaving the company free to terminate his contract on three months’ notice.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Gilligan ruled on an interlocutory application concerning a termination communicated by letter dated 18 August 2015. The judge found that Mr Brennan had a strong case that his contract entitled him to three months’ written notice, except in circumstances that did not apply. He had worked for the company for less than a year and was told his role would be made redundant.

The High Court has temporarily restrained Irish Pride Bakeries from terminating Conor Brennan’s employment or removing him from his sales and business development manager position, pending the determination of his proceedings. The court also directed the company to continue paying his salary under his contract.

Mr Justice Gilligan ruled on an interlocutory application concerning a termination communicated by letter dated 18 August 2015. The judge found that Mr Brennan had a strong case that his contract entitled him to three months’ written notice, except in circumstances that did not apply. He had worked for the company for less than a year and was told his role would be made redundant.

The company was in receivership. Its joint receivers said they had identified no continuing need for Mr Brennan’s role, that the purchaser did not require a standalone management team, and that reducing staffing costs was necessary. The judgment records that the receivers considered his role redundant. Mr Brennan was not asking the court on this application to decide whether the redundancy itself was genuine or whether he had been unfairly selected. His claim concerned the contractual notice period.

The judge said the issue was whether the company could terminate Mr Brennan’s employment on effectively two weeks’ notice despite the contract. He considered that honoring the three-month notice period could give Mr Brennan the opportunity to benefit from rights under the transfer of undertakings regulations, including participation in an information and consultation process. The court did not decide his ultimate entitlement under those regulations.

In weighing the risk of injustice, Mr Justice Gilligan said damages would not be an adequate remedy and that the balance of convenience favored Mr Brennan. He granted interlocutory relief against the purported termination and removal from his position, and directed payment of his contractual salary. The judgment states that the company remains free to give three months’ notice. The order is temporary, pending a full hearing; it does not finally decide the underlying contractual claim or prevent a properly notified termination.

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