The High Court has refused an application for an interlocutory injunction by Owen Hughes in a dispute over the termination of his employment by MongoDB Limited. The court held that Hughes had not shown a strong case likely to succeed at the hearing of the action. It did not consider whether damages would be adequate or where the balance of convenience lay.
Hughes began working for MongoDB in September 2013 as technical director for its Europe, Middle East and Africa operations, based in the company’s Ireland office. His employment terms were set out in a letter of offer. It provided for one month’s notice, or pay in lieu, and a six-month probationary period. A separate full employment contract was not provided.
On 8 May 2014, while returning from a business trip, Hughes was told by his immediate superior that his employment would end that day. MongoDB confirmed the termination by email and said it would pay one month’s salary in lieu of notice. The company said he was not a good fit, and that he had not been dismissed for misconduct or poor performance. It also offered a standard reference and to remind senior management that the dismissal was on a no-fault basis.
Hughes disputed that account. He said issues raised during a February performance review and in the termination call showed that the dismissal was based on poor performance. He argued that his contract should be understood to require fair procedures before a performance-based dismissal, and that the company had not provided a performance improvement plan, support or mentoring, or a disciplinary process.
The judge said the injunction application required Hughes to show a strong case and that he was likely to succeed at trial. The judge noted that the employment terms allowed termination on one month’s notice or pay in lieu, which Hughes received. The letter of offer contained no disciplinary process. The court also found no evidence that MongoDB had represented to Hughes or anyone else that his dismissal was fault-based, apart from his partially disputed account of the telephone conversation.
The judge concluded that the authorities cited did not establish a general implied right to fair procedures for every dismissal based on performance. A previous case relied on by Hughes involved specific contract terms that treated failure to discharge duties as a ground for summary dismissal, unlike his letter of offer.
The court refused the application. This was an interlocutory decision in the ongoing action, which also sought declarations and damages; the judgment did not determine those claims at trial.