The High Court has ordered Horse’s Mouth Limited, which trades as SportCaller, to lift Conor Durnin’s suspension and pay his salary and benefits while his case proceeds, after finding he had a strong case that his summary dismissal was unlawful.
In an interlocutory judgment delivered on 19 August 2024, Ms Justice Stack ordered that Durnin be treated as not dismissed and restored to his position as head of business to business (B2B), with access to work email. After hearing counsel on 27 August, the court made orders restraining the company from treating him as dismissed, continuing his pay and benefits, and lifting his suspension. He may carry out duties assigned to him but is not required to attend work unless specifically required under his 2021 contract.
The ruling concerns interim relief, not a final decision on the employment dispute. The court said the issues arising from the investigation would have to be reconsidered by another decision-maker.
Durnin was suspended in March 2024 after the company raised concerns about his role as a director and shareholder in The Unit, a business that supplied services to SportCaller. The investigation found no evidence that The Unit had taken material business from SportCaller or breached the contract’s restrictive covenants. The disciplinary decision dismissed Durnin for alleged breaches of his employment contract and the Bally’s Group Code of Conduct.
The judge found a strong case that the reasons relied on for summary dismissal could not justify it under the contract. Durnin had no prior written warning and an unblemished work record. The contract required a prior written warning before repeated or continuing breaches of the relevant kind could support dismissal. The court also found a strong case that the July 2022 related-party questionnaire had been relied on erroneously: it related to the second quarter, when the evidence showed no qualifying transaction with The Unit.
The court was not satisfied that Durnin had established a basis for interlocutory relief over the lawfulness of his initial suspension. It also noted his position that he received no remuneration from The Unit and therefore saw no conflict of interest, which the judge considered unsustainable. In balancing the parties’ positions, however, the court cited the relatively small sums involved, the managing director’s knowledge of Durnin’s involvement and the potential harm to his reputation if he remained excluded from work and client contact.
The judgment leaves the underlying claims for trial and sets out the interim orders pending that determination.