The High Court struck out all claims in proceedings brought by former Courts Service employee Walter John Harvey, finding that his common-law wrongful dismissal claim could not proceed after the Employment Appeals Tribunal began hearing his claim.
Mr Justice Tony O’Connor delivered the judgment on 5 November 2015. The defendants had applied to strike out the case on several grounds, including that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was bound to fail.
Harvey had worked as a Courts Service Service Officer from June 2000 until he was suspended on 4 May 2007. His dismissal took effect on 5 September 2008. He later lodged a claim with the EAT, naming the Courts Service as his employer. The tribunal received his application on 16 January 2009, and he attended a hearing in 2011.
The court held that by choosing to pursue the EAT process, Harvey triggered section 15(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Act. That provision prevents an employee from recovering common-law damages for wrongful dismissal once a tribunal hearing has commenced. The judge said the alleged failure to provide employment terms information did not remove the employer’s rights under that provision. He also rejected Harvey’s submission that an earlier version of the legislation should apply.
Harvey alleged at the hearing of the strike-out application that he had been assaulted and defamed by one or more defendants. The judge ruled that those claims were not set out in either the original summons or the amended statement of claim, which did not provide the particulars needed to identify the alleged acts or words. The court would not add those claims at that late stage. The judgment noted statutory requirements and limitation periods that could apply to such claims, but did not determine any separate claim on its merits.
The judge also rejected an attempt to recast the dismissal dispute as a claim for interference with Harvey’s right to a livelihood. He said the court could not investigate his broader complaints about the EAT’s conduct or composition in these proceedings; Harvey had told the court that he had issued separate proceedings concerning the tribunal.
The court concluded that the defendants had shown the claims were bound to fail, even if the allegations were proved at trial, and ordered that Harvey’s claims against the defendants be struck out. The judgment did not determine the separate proceedings he said he had issued.