The High Court refused an application by two defendants to dismiss claims brought against them by Jason Bushe, finding they had not shown that the claims were bound to fail. In a separate ruling, the court awarded the defendants their costs of an interlocutory injunction motion that Bushe withdrew on the day it was due to be heard.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Costello on 9 February 2018, concerned proceedings arising from Bushe’s employment as managing director of the first defendant, T.P.E.M. Limited trading as Pulse Logistics. The second and third defendants were Total Produce International Holdings Limited and Total Produce PLC. Masterlink Logistics Limited was the fourth defendant.
The judgment records that the first defendant remained Bushe’s employer and that he had never been employed by the second or third defendants. Bushe’s case included allegations that the other defendants interfered with his employment rights under the TUPE regime. He also pleaded that the second and third defendants interfered with his employment contract through intimidation or breach of duty or obligation.
The second and third defendants applied to dismiss the proceedings against them under Order 19, rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts or under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The court held that the statement of claim disclosed two recognised causes of action: intimidation and inducing breach of contract. That was sufficient to reject the application under Order 19, rule 28, which concerns whether pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action.
Considering the alternative application, the judge noted that Bushe’s affidavits attributed some alleged actions to agents of the second and third defendants. Although the pleadings lacked precision, they could potentially be amended to set out the claims in more detail. The defendants had not established that the claims were bound to fail, so the court refused the dismissal application. The court did not decide whether the allegations were true or whether Bushe would ultimately succeed.
The judgment also addressed costs after Bushe withdrew his motion for interlocutory injunctions. He had sought orders restraining changes to his employment terms or transfer of his contract, and preventing suspension, administrative leave or other employment action. After being on paid medical leave, he sought to return to work. The first defendant required medical confirmation of his fitness. On 14 November 2017, the defendant said a report found him fit to return and that he would be welcomed back. Bushe then chose not to proceed with the injunction motion.
The judge found that the defendants had not compromised the dispute or given an undertaking, and that Bushe had withdrawn without obtaining an order, compromise or undertaking. The court refused his application for costs and ordered that the defendants receive their costs of the injunction motion.