The High Court has allowed a security engineer’s appeal after finding that he met the legal test for interim relief in a dismissal case linked to a fire safety disclosure. The court did not make a final finding on his unfair dismissal claim and said it would hear the parties on the appropriate order.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Denise Brett on 13 March 2025, concerned the engineer’s appeal from a Circuit Court refusal of interim relief. He had worked for Catch Security Systems Limited from September 2023 and was on a one-year probationary period.
The dispute arose after work at a pub in Crosshaven, County Cork. The engineer said he noticed that an alarm panel for an apartment above the pub, which he believed was being let as an Airbnb, was not connected to the fire protection system serving the pub. In an email to his employer on 8 May 2024, he raised concerns about fire safety and the possible issue of a certificate for the system. He claimed that his equipment was taken from him and that he was given no further fire-related work.
The company’s managing director said the concerns were considered with an independent fire consultant and the premises owner, and that further inspection found no additional work was required. The company said the engineer was dismissed on 5 July 2024 because of customer complaints about his performance and interactions in June and an incident in July. The engineer said he had not been given details of those complaints. The company denied that the dismissal was connected to his email. The High Court left those disputed facts for the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
The judge rejected the company’s argument that the appeal should be struck out because the interim relief application preceded the WRC complaints. She also held that the engineer had a reasonable belief that his email disclosed potential wrongdoing, and that it was not clear the statutory exception for matters within a worker’s or employer’s function to detect, investigate or prosecute applied. She expressed no final view on that exception, which remains for the substantive WRC proceedings.
The court found substantial grounds for contending that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from the disclosure. It relied in part on the timing: the company referred to multiple customer complaints first arising in June, after the May email, while no earlier complaints were identified in the affidavits. The judge said the WRC would determine the underlying dismissal claim. She allowed the appeal and adjourned the question of the appropriate interim order for hearing between the parties.