The High Court has restrained an employer from continuing a disciplinary process against its managing director while his legal proceedings are pending, after finding he had a strong case that the proposed investigation was tainted from the outset.
In a judgment delivered on 8 July 2021, Ms Justice Butler said the employee had shown a strong case that the company had already concluded a disputed €14,000 bonus payment was improper before proposing an investigation. She also found a strong case that the board had decided to suspend him without prior notice. These were interlocutory assessments, not final findings; the court said the disputed evidence could be tested at trial.
The employee, Rory Mason, had worked as managing director and company secretary of ILTB Limited, trading as Gillen Markets, since January 2016. He also held a 15% shareholding through Rorel Ltd, purchased for about €235,000. A shareholders’ agreement provided for a less advantageous share valuation if he became a “bad leaver”.
The parties disputed whether the bonus had been approved. Mason said it was agreed by the board in December 2020 and that he arranged payment in March 2021. The company’s chairman, Dermot Browne, denied approving it and said the board had decided no director should receive a bonus. The company alleged the payment was unauthorised; Mason denied fraud and theft.
At a meeting on 23 April 2021, Browne sought Mason’s resignation and raised possible notification to the Central Bank and Gardaí. Mason said he was summarily dismissed; Browne said he was not. The judge found a fair question to be tried on whether a dismissal had occurred, and said that if it had, there would be a strong case that it was unlawful.
On 28 April, the board decided to appoint an independent investigator and suspend Mason with pay. The decision was not implemented after the High Court granted interim relief restraining steps concerning him. The judge said the company could have a genuine concern about the payment and an employer may investigate employee conduct, but that did not resolve the separate question of whether the process had been established fairly.
Weighing the parties’ positions, the court said the proposed investigation carried significant and potentially irreparable reputational harm in Mason’s specialised sector. It restrained the company from continuing the disciplinary process pending determination of the substantive proceedings and ordered it to facilitate his return to work as an unsuspended employee. The court did not make a final decision on the allegations, the legality of the disputed steps, or the ultimate outcome of the case. It invited further submissions on the precise orders, case directions and costs, allowing seven days.