The High Court has refused an employee’s application for interlocutory injunctions in a dispute over her return from a secondment and the termination of her employment. Ms Justice Pilkington said the employee had raised issues requiring a trial, but had not established the strong case needed for interim relief.
The plaintiff had worked for Merck Millipore Limited for about 25 years before taking a secondment with Merck KGaA in Germany. Her secondment ended on 30 September 2018, and she returned to Ireland the following day. The defendants accepted that she was entitled to return to her “home company”, but said her former role was no longer available and offered her the secondment role based in Ireland. She did not accept that offer.
The plaintiff alleged that events on 1 October, including losing access to the company system and being asked to leave the Cork premises, amounted to a termination. The defendants initially treated her as having resigned after she declined the proposed role. In a letter dated 16 October, however, they gave three months’ notice of termination under her contract, elected to pay her in lieu of notice and said the employment would end immediately. They also offered an ex gratia payment of €100,000.
The plaintiff sought interim orders concerning her employment, salary and benefits, and preventing statements about her termination, alleged misconduct or the defendants’ trust in her. Her case focused on alleged reputational damage and her claimed entitlement to discuss alternative work or redundancy. The defendants disputed that she was entitled to a redundancy package and said her employment had been terminated.
Applying the requirement for a “strong case” in an employment injunction application, the judge said the defendants’ concession that they were not relying on a deemed resignation, together with their willingness to address reputational concerns about the period from 1 to 16 October, weakened the plaintiff’s application. The judge said the affidavits did not allow her to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to discussions about her options or a redundancy package; those matters would require adjudication at trial.
The judge also said she had seen no documentation in the proceedings that she considered false, misleading or defamatory. She concluded that the plaintiff had not established a strong case for interlocutory relief and denied the requested injunctions. The judgment did not determine the plaintiff’s underlying contractual claims or her entitlement to redundancy.