Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions

1. The Plaintiff in this action Mr Graham O’Neill was employed by the first named Defendant Canada Life Assurance (Ireland) Limited, a company previously known as Abbey Life Assurance (Ireland) Limited. He was employed by that company as an investment fund manager apparently under the terms of a contract in writing which was dated the 29th January 1990. The written terms under which Mr O’Neill was so employed contained provision that his employment might be terminated on six months notice. On the 23rd March 1992 his employer Canada Life Assurance (Ireland) Limited terminated his employment by notice expiring on the 23rd September 1992. On the 5th October of that year proceedings were instituted by Mr O’Neill effectively claiming damages as against Canada Life for wrongful dismissal and against the secondly named Defendants Lloyds Abbey Life Plc for damages for slander. The pleadings were delivered and particulars sought and given and discovery made and the matter was ultimately set down for hearing but did not come on for hearing. No date was fixed for the hearing. In any event an application was made by notice of motion on the 10th November 1997 seeking leave to amend the statement of claim. Effectively the

2. How or why an application should be made in that behalf and at that time was explained by the evolution of the law in England at any rate in relation to the obligations of employers. It emerged that in the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom in the case of Malick v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International [1998] AC 20 ultimately culminating with the decision of the House of Lords which is reported in 1998 AC at page 20. In that jurisdiction it has been held, in the very dramatic circumstances of that case, that there was an implied term that employers would not act fraudulently and that redundant employees of that banking company might have an action for compensation not only for loss of employment but also for the stigma, as it was described, attaching to them as a result of the breach by their employers of their implicit obligation to conduct their business in a proper and honourable fashion.

3. I am not suggesting or accepting that this is necessarily the law in this country but it is that evolution which explains, in part at any rate, the delay of the Plaintiff in making this particular case or seeking to make this case based on the amendment which was sought before Mr Justice Geoghegan and allowed by him on the 12th March 1998. I should have said, and if I may revert to it in relation to the terms of the contract under which Mr O’Neill was employed, I did say it was an express term of that contract that his employment would be terminable on six months notice but it was and is his case that notwithstanding that express

4. The Defendant employers before Mr Justice Geoghegan and on appeal to this Court contended that an amendment at this stage was late, that there had been inordinate delay and that it was an embarrassment to them. That the nature of the case that is being made would create difficulties for them having regard to failures of recollection which necessarily occur with the passage of time. Undoubtedly this is so. Everyday that goes by makes memories more feeble but it has not been suggested that there are any particular witnesses who are no longer available. What is suggested is there may be difficulty in securing their attendance and that there will be some problems in relation to recollection. On the other hand as Counsel for the Respondent in the appeal has pointed out much of the case which the Plaintiff seeks to make would relate to documentation in the possession of the employer and that this should still be available and would be available on discovery to the Plaintiff and available to the Defendants to enable the witnesses, wherever they may be, to refresh their memory on events which may be in contention.

5. In the circumstances it does not seem to me that a case has been made out that an amendment at this stage would be so embarrassing or so unfair as to be unjust to the employer Defendants. Undoubtedly the case which the Plaintiff seeks to make is one which would if

6. I would dismiss the appeal.