The High Court has refused an application to stop a solicitor’s firm from proceeding with a disciplinary investigation of a legal executive, ruling that court intervention at this stage would be premature.
Mr Justice John Hedigan said the employer’s attempt to dismiss the employee on 18 February 2008 was “entirely improper” and made without regard to fair procedures. But he found that the later disciplinary investigation had not, so far, been tainted in a way that prevented it from continuing.
The plaintiff had worked for the defendant’s firm for 11 and a half years, progressing from receptionist to legal executive. There was no written employment contract or disciplinary procedure, the judgment said.
A dispute about her salary arose between 4 and 18 February. The evidence about it was “somewhat contradictory”, and the dispute became heated. On 18 February, the defendant gave her a letter reporting that it was dismissing her immediately and requiring her resignation by the following Friday. She left the office that day. No disciplinary action had been taken at that point.
Two days later, she received a letter saying that Gerard Gallagher, a solicitor in the same firm, had been delegated to investigate allegations of gross misconduct. These concerned the heated exchanges and alleged derogatory remarks about staff. The letter placed her on paid suspension, invited her to respond at a meeting with representation if she wished, and said no decision on termination would be made until the investigation was complete.
A further letter on 21 February raised an allegation about her contact with a former partner of the defendant. The judgment records the allegation that this meeting raised questions about her reliability concerning trust and confidence within the firm. At the time of the judgment, she remained suspended on full pay.
The defendant argued that she had not been dismissed and that she remained employed while the allegations were investigated fairly. The judge said he could not assume the investigation would be unfair in future. He noted that if it was not fair, that could have further consequences, and the plaintiff could take proceedings after it concluded if she considered it unfairly conducted.
The court refused the interlocutory relief sought, which included orders to prevent dismissal and replacement, provide an appeal to an independent third party, and require payment of salary, bonuses, expenses and pension contributions. The judge reserved the costs of the application to be costs in the action, referring to his view of the original attempted dismissal. The judgment does not determine the allegations or the eventual outcome of the disciplinary process.