The High Court has refused an application by Catherine Ryan for her salary to be paid while her employment dispute with Bank of Ireland proceeds to trial. The court said it could not conclude on the contested affidavit evidence that she had a strong case likely to succeed, and directed that the case be brought to trial at the earliest possible opportunity.
Ms Ryan’s wider claim challenges the bank’s termination of her employment by letter dated 6 May 2016. She seeks a declaration that the termination was ineffective, along with other relief including reinstatement and damages, or damages alone. At this interlocutory hearing, however, the only relief pursued was ongoing salary pending determination of the proceedings.
The judgment says Ms Ryan had been recruited from a senior, highly paid role at a Dublin accountancy firm to join the bank as Deputy Head of Group Performance and Reward. Her employment contract provided for a six-month probationary period, which could be extended, and allowed termination during probation on four weeks’ notice if her conduct or performance was unsatisfactory or she was otherwise considered unsuitable. The contract also contained a clause superseding prior agreements and representations relating to her employment.
The bank said Ms Ryan was unsuitable for the role and relied on the contract, including its provision superseding prior discussions. It maintained it could terminate her employment and pay the equivalent of four weeks’ salary.
Ms Ryan alleged that the duties she was directed to perform involved compliance work rather than the Group Performance and Reward role she says had been discussed. She also relied on representations about the role and a possible move into a senior departmental post within 18 months. The bank denied that such a move had been intended. The judge noted that serious allegations concerning the bank and senior employees were flatly contradicted, and that the parties’ accounts of relevant conversations differed.
The judge said the outcome depended on evidence to be assessed at trial, where the trial judge could evaluate witnesses and the supporting facts and documents. He held that the plaintiff had not met the burden required for the court to exercise its discretion to order ongoing salary. The court did not determine the underlying employment claim; it refused the interim salary relief and called for the case to be brought to trial promptly. The judge said he would hear submissions on how to facilitate that process.