The Court of Appeal has dismissed Laurence Kearney’s appeal against the refusal of an injunction that would have restrained Byrne Wallace from implementing his dismissal and required the firm to continue paying his salary while his substantive case was pending.
The appeal concerned interim relief, not a final determination of whether Kearney’s redundancy was genuine or whether his dismissal was lawful. The court held that he had not shown the “strong case” required for the injunction he sought. It did not decide the unresolved factual dispute about the firm’s reasons for ending his employment, nor did it assess the balance of convenience or whether damages would be adequate.
Kearney, a solicitor employed by the firm from 2006, had been absent from work for extended periods because of bipolar mood disorder. After his return in November 2015, the judgment records a disagreement with a superior over a fee. The firm later asked him to attend a medical assessment, which concluded he was fit for work; his own psychiatrist agreed. Kearney said requests to return to work were ignored.
In a letter dated 28 August 2017, the firm said his former role no longer existed, no suitable alternative role was available, and it regarded the role as redundant with immediate effect. It offered statutory and contractual entitlements and two months’ pay in lieu of notice. Kearney disputed that a genuine redundancy existed, alleging that his former work continued and that the firm was recruiting for similar work.
He brought substantive proceedings seeking declarations that his termination was null and void, that he remained employed, and that the firm had to provide him with work. He also sought damages. Those proceedings had not been heard and determined at the time of the appeal. Separate earlier proceedings concerning his employment status and remuneration were also still unresolved.
Kearney argued that the firm had breached implied contractual duties, including mutual trust and good faith. The court declined to revisit the High Court decision in *Nolan v Emo Oil Services Ltd*, which treated disputes of this kind as falling within the statutory framework for unfair dismissal and redundancy unless a separate contractual basis for a common-law claim was established.
The appeal judgment said an implied term of mutual trust and good faith could not be ruled out in general, but no facts had been established on this application to show that such a term prevented the firm from terminating employment on redundancy grounds after giving proper notice. The court made no definitive ruling on whether such a term exists in every employment contract.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that Kearney had not demonstrated a strong case for interim relief and dismissed the appeal. The underlying claims remained unresolved.