The High Court granted two interim injunctions to a woman challenging her employer’s attempt to end her employment, but refused to order the company to treat her as continuing to be employed. The court did not decide whether the dismissal was lawful or effective; those questions remain for trial.
The plaintiff had been hired as Brand and Marketing Manager by William Connolly and Sons Limited, which trades as Connolly’s Red Mills. Her employment terms provided for a six-month probationary period, which was extended by agreement until 27 August 2007 after a performance review. The parties disputed whether the probation period was extended again while she was on leave, and whether it was still running when the company told her in September that it intended to terminate her employment.
The plaintiff argued that her probation had expired and that the company could not dismiss her for performance without following the four-stage disciplinary procedure in her contract. She maintained that the purported dismissal was ineffective and sought interim orders requiring the company to treat her as an employee, preventing it from announcing the dismissal, and stopping it from appointing someone else to her position.
The company argued that she was still on probation and that it could terminate her employment on performance grounds under the contract, with notice, without using the disciplinary procedure. It also said the plaintiff’s request to be treated as an employee was, in substance, a mandatory order requiring the employment contract to be enforced before trial.
Mr Justice John Edwards agreed that the request to treat the plaintiff as still employed would have that mandatory effect. Although she had raised issues fit for trial, he was not satisfied that she had shown a strong case likely to succeed, the higher threshold for that form of interim relief. He expressly left the lawfulness and effectiveness of the dismissal for trial.
The judge granted the other two injunctions. He found a fair issue to be tried and considered damages inadequate if news of the purported dismissal were widely publicised, because it could harm the plaintiff’s reputation. He also found that her relocation and family arrangements could not be fully compensated in damages. The company must not publicise the purported dismissal or fill her post pending the hearing of the action. The orders do not require it to let her work or pay her during that period. Costs were reserved to the hearing of the action.