The High Court has stayed a former employee’s damages case until the Employment Appeals Tribunal decides whether she suffered financial loss from her dismissal. The court held that her High Court claim could proceed on separate issues, but directed that it must not overlap with the tribunal claim.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice John MacMenamin on 21 December 2010, concerned a motion by Archaeological Development Services Limited to strike out parts or all of the employee’s statement of claim, or to have the court decline jurisdiction because she had not first applied to the Injuries Board.
The employee alleged that assurances about the appointment of a former staff member as chief executive were breached, and that she later faced intimidation and harassment. She also alleged that conditions were imposed on her return to work after sick leave and that her salary stopped. These matters were background to the procedural applications; the judge expressly said they were not findings of fact.
The judge rejected the argument that the High Court lacked jurisdiction for want of a prior Injuries Board application. He found, on the evidence in this case, that when the proceedings began the employee intended to pursue injunctive relief as well as other claims. That intention brought the action outside the relevant statutory requirement, the court held. The employee later abandoned the injunction claims.
The judgment also allowed her to pursue a tribunal claim about financial loss arising from dismissal while maintaining a separate High Court claim concerning alleged earlier conduct and its consequences. The judge distinguished the case from authorities involving a pleaded wrongful dismissal claim: no such claim had been made in the statement of claim. He did not decide whether the allegations were true or whether damages were due.
To prevent overlap, the High Court damages claim was stayed until the tribunal proceedings conclude. The tribunal was to address financial loss from dismissal, if dismissal and loss were established. The statement of claim must then be amended to identify the case remaining before the High Court, plead the tribunal outcome and any award, and ensure there are no overlapping heads of loss. The judge said the employee could not pursue a wrongful dismissal claim in the High Court under another description.
The court also directed changes to the pleadings. The employee must set out the full terms of any alleged contractual variation or representation. A lengthy narrative of events, conversations and emails was to be deleted from its present position in the statement of claim because it set out evidence rather than material facts. The court rejected the claims that the proceedings were inherently vexatious or an abuse of process.