The High Court found that Thomas Crosbie Holdings Limited breached its employment contract with Brian Nerney when it ended his role as chief executive of the Roscommon Herald on six months’ notice in July 2012. The court held that the contract ran until June 2016, but limited compensation for lost remuneration to two years from the date of dismissal. It postponed its order while the parties reassess the amount due.
Justice Laffoy’s judgment, delivered on 22 March 2013, said the contract provided for successive four-year terms unless the company gave notice of an intention not to renew at least six months before a term expired. No such notice was given before the term beginning in June 2012. The judge rejected the company’s argument that the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 had converted the agreement into a contract of indefinite duration.
The company told Nerney in June 2012 that his chief executive position was at risk because of restructuring and declining business. After a consultation period, it confirmed the redundancy on 17 July and gave six months’ notice, with payment in lieu. Nerney accepted the statutory redundancy payment and notice payment in mitigation of his loss. He did not pursue a challenge to the validity of the redundancy in these proceedings.
The court found the six-month notice did not comply with the contract and held the company liable in damages for wrongful dismissal. It assessed the reasonable period for which lost remuneration should be compensated as two years from 17 July 2012, taking account of the evidence about prospects for alternative work and the time available to seek it. The judge expressly made no finding that Nerney had failed to take steps to mitigate his loss.
The compensation calculation is not final. It is to include salary, the agreed 2% increase, bonus, car allowance and pension contributions for the period identified by the court. The €34,272 statutory redundancy payment is not to be deducted. The parties may agree the tax calculation for the remuneration elements; if they cannot, the accountant who gave evidence is to calculate it, with any dispute returning to the court for further evidence and submissions.
The court dismissed Nerney’s claim for general damages for reputational harm. It made no final order on damages and adjourned the proceedings so the parties could reassess the amount in light of the judgment. The judgment does not state the eventual damages figure or the later outcome of that assessment.