The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by City Learning Limited and two of its directors, dismissing Mary Munnelly’s 2019 proceedings over her workplace dispute with the company. The Court held that the claims could and should have been raised in an earlier case, which had been dismissed in full.
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Donal O’Donnell on 29 November 2023, set aside a High Court decision that had allowed some of the later proceedings to continue. The Supreme Court substituted an order dismissing Ms Munnelly’s claim against all three defendants: City Learning, Margaret Hassett and Timothy Cremin.
Ms Munnelly began working with City Learning in September 2012. The parties disputed whether she was an employee or an independent contractor and whether her role was sales executive or telesales executive. She left in May 2015 after an incident or series of incidents involving Ms Hassett, then the company’s chief executive. An incident on 26 March 2015 featured in both sets of proceedings.
In 2016, Ms Munnelly sued the company, initially claiming defamation over a work reference. Amendments also referred to bullying, alleged constructive dismissal and loss of earnings. After hearing evidence in November 2018, the Circuit Court dismissed the proceedings, with no order as to costs. Ms Munnelly did not appeal.
She brought a second Circuit Court case in 2019, this time naming Ms Hassett and Mr Cremin as well as the company. It alleged breaches of duty and negligence and sought damages for loss of earnings, among other relief. The Circuit Court struck out the case. The High Court later reversed that decision, finding that issues including bullying and harassment had not received a ruling in the first case and could be raised again. It also found that prior authorisation from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board was not required. The Supreme Court did not grant leave to appeal the PIAB issue.
The Supreme Court said the written order in the first case dismissed Ms Munnelly’s claim in its entirety. It rejected the argument that remarks attributed to the first judge showed a failure to decide some claims, noting that the account was second-hand and did not include the judge’s reasons or the course of the hearing. The Court said later proceedings could not be used to avoid the legal effect of the earlier order.
The Court distinguished claims already determined from claims that should have been brought earlier. It said any defamation claim about the reference was res judicata, while the later breach-of-duty claim fell within the rule against re-litigating matters that could and should have been raised in prior proceedings. It also held that Ms Hassett could rely on that rule despite not being a party to the first case, given the close connection between the claims against her and the company. The Court concluded that the High Court had applied the rule incorrectly and allowed the appeal.