The High Court has struck out parts of a former employee’s claim against Symantec Limited, including relief framed as unfair dismissal and a request to enforce an Arizona court order in Ireland. The court also removed specified portions of a pleaded Employment Equality Acts claim. The wider proceedings remain ongoing.
In a judgment delivered on 30 June 2022, Ms Justice Stack considered the company’s application to strike out parts of the statement of claim. The plaintiff, Brendon Christian, had worked for Symantec as senior corporate counsel from 30 November 2018 to 2 May 2019. His proceedings, issued in 2019, include claims relating to contract, data protection, protected disclosures and duties owed by the company.
The plaintiff accepted that he could not pursue an unfair dismissal claim directly in the High Court. He said he referred to his dismissal as a detriment under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. The judge struck out the unfair dismissal relief while noting that explanation.
The judge also struck out a draft declaration alleging discrimination in breach of the Employment Equality Acts, along with specified paragraphs of the statement of claim. The plaintiff argued that he was not seeking relief under those Acts, but relied on their discrimination provisions to support his interpretation of “detriment” under the Protected Disclosures Act. The judge found that this argument was not pleaded in the relevant passages, which instead set out a distinct claim under the Equality Acts. She said such a claim should have been brought before the Workplace Relations Commission.
A further draft declaration said Symantec had violated the GDPR and a 2015 order obtained by the US Federal Trade Commission, and sought compensation. The plaintiff disclaimed any intention to enforce the Arizona court order, saying it was relevant to his protected disclosure claim. The judge struck out that declaration because the High Court could not enforce the Arizona order in Ireland. She declined to remove references to the order elsewhere in the statement of claim, saying the court could not redraft the pleading.
The order struck out the unfair dismissal relief; the two draft declarations concerning the Equality Acts and the Arizona order; and paragraphs 5.21.11–14 and 10.2–5 of the statement of claim. Paragraph 10.6 was left in place. The court directed that the matter be listed for directions on service of an amended statement of claim and to deal with costs. The judgment did not determine the remaining claims.