Bradshaw v Murphy & Cooper Bar & Grill Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan
• Judgment Date: 26 March 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 146
• Court: High Court
• Date: 26 March 2014

[2014] IEHC 146

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 2183 P/2014]

Bradshaw v Murphy & Cooper Bar & Grill Ltd

BETWEEN

LEE BRADSHAW

PLAINTIFF

AND

WILLIAM MURPHY AND JOSEPH MURPHY AND CLAIRE MURPHY AND COPPER BAR AND GRILL LIMITED

DEFENDANTS

MAHA LINGAM v HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE (HSE) 2006 ELR 137 2005/36/7565 2005 IESC 89

CARROLL v BUS ÁTHA CLIATH (DUBLIN BUS) 2005 4 IR 184 2005 ELR 192 2004/6/1392 2005 IEHC 1

PARTNERSHIP ACT 1890 S1

PARTNERSHIP ACT 1890 S1(1)

PARTNERSHIP ACT 1890 S2(A)

Interlocutory relief - Employment - Dismissal - Misconduct - Fair procedures - Partnership - Whether partnership agreement - Whether damages an inadequate remedy - Undertakings

The plaintiff, Lee Bradshaw, was an employee of the fourth named defendant, Copper Bar and Grill Limited (the Company). The plaintiff, a ‘Chef and restaurateur’, contended that he was in partnership with the first named defendant, William Murphy. The second named defendant, Joseph Murphy, was a director of the Company and the third named defendant, Claire Murphy, was a shareholder in the Company. On the 11 ^th of December 2013, there was a meeting between the plaintiff and the first and second named defendants. William Murphy stated that he told the plaintiff that he was being dismissed and that he would be paid for four weeks at the meeting. The plaintiff, who initially thought that he was being placed on a month of paid leave, came to understand the following day that the defendants intended to dismiss him and dissolve the partnership.

The defendants gave undertakings that they would not interfere with the plaintiff”s share in the partnership; that they would not dismiss the plaintiff; and that they would resume weekly payment in wages. The defendants stated that they were prepared to give further undertakings to the Court pending the full hearing of the proceedings. These were that they would not dissipate or dispose of the assets or business of the Company or wind it up save on providing of seven days notice; that they would not dismiss the plaintiff on the ground of misconduct (relating to the meeting of the 11 ^th of December); and that they would not communicate to any third party that the plaintiff was terminated on the ground of misconduct. Notwithstanding the undertakings, the plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the termination of his contract of employment with the company and an injunction restraining the defendants from terminating or purporting to terminate the partnership with William Murphy.

The plaintiff asserted that any allegation of dismissal for misconduct invoked a requirement to afford him fair procedures. The defendants claimed that this requirement was disapplied in light of their undertaking that they may only terminate the employment in accordance with the contractual terms. The Court accepted this submission, noting that while the plaintiff may have raised a serious issue as to whether the Company was entitled to effect the dismissal indicated in the meeting of the 11 ^th of December, no such issue was raised as to entitlement to dismiss in accordance with the relevant contractual provisions.

The plaintiff also contended that he reached an agreement with William Murphy on partnership terms on a proposed restaurant which became the Copper Bar and Grill. William Murphy disputed the existence of this partnership agreement. The Court held that it was unnecessary to determine the existence of the partnership agreement as the plaintiff failed to establish that damages would be an inadequate remedy for the alleged breaches he applied to restrain. The Court noted, in accordance with the principles set out in Campus OilLtd v Minister for Energy (No 2), that the interlocutory injunctions sought had to be refused.

The Court noted the undertakings given by the defendants pending the full hearing and refused the interlocutory reliefs sought.

1 JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan delivered on the 26th day of March 2014

2 1. The plaintiff is an employee of the fourth named defendant ("the Company"). The Company carries on a business known as 'The Copper Bar and Grill' in the South Beacon Quarter, Sandyford, Dublin. The plaintiff is a Chef and restaurateur.

3 2. The plaintiff contends that he is in partnership with the first named defendant, Mr. William Murphy, and that the business of the partnership relates to the Copper Bar and Grill. The second named defendant, Mr. Joseph Murphy, is a director of the Company and the third named defendant, Ms. Claire Muprhy, who is the wife of the first named defendant, is a shareholder of the Company.

4 3. It does not appear to be in dispute that the Company now carries on the business of the Copper Bar and Grill and that the plaintiff is employed by the Company.

5 4. Further, it is not in dispute that there was a meeting between the plaintiff and Mr. William Murphy and Mr. Joseph Murphy on 11 ^th December, 2013. There is significant dispute as to what was said by the Messrs. Murphy at that meeting. The plaintiff deposes that he understood that he was being placed on leave for a month, during which he would be paid, and whilst he acknowledges that Mr. William Murphy said he did not want to work with him any longer, also states that he understood that everything would be looked in a month's time. Mr. William Murphy deposes that he told the plaintiff that he was being dismissed; that the Company would pay him for four weeks on certain conditions which are in dispute.

6 5. The plaintiff appears, however, to have understood from the meeting of 11 ^th December, 2013, and from a further conversation and information given him of communications to third parties on the following day that the defendants did intend to effect a dismissal, and, as he contends, a dissolution of the partnership.

7 6. These proceedings were commenced on 31 ^st January, 2014, and on the same date, an application was made ex parte to the High Court and Ryan J. granted liberty to serve a motion seeking interlocutory relief returnable for Monday 3 rd February, 2014.

8 7. On 3 ^rd February, 2014, the defendants gave undertakings to the Court pending the hearing and determination of the interlocutory application in which, in summary, they undertook:

9 (i) Not to interfere with the plaintiff's share in the partnership the subject matter of the proceedings, partnership assets and the business known as the Copper Bar and Grill; the plaintiff's assets or those of the Company and the plaintiff's shareholding the subject matter of the proceedings in the Company;

10 (ii) not to dismiss the plaintiff or to take any step to effect the dismissal of the plaintiff, and

11 (iii) to resume payment on a weekly basis of wages and to make other payments to the plaintiff in specified amounts.

12 8. The above undertakings, in their full detail, subsisted until the time of the hearing of the interlocutory application and continue to subsist pending the delivery of this judgment.

Interlocutory Application

13 9. Whilst the interlocutory reliefs sought in the notice of motion are multiple, in substance, they are divided into two issues: orders restraining the defendants from terminating or purporting to terminate the employment of the plaintiff with the Company and injunctions restraining the defendants from terminating or purporting to terminate the partnership between the plaintiff and Mr. William Murphy

14 10. The defendants had proffered an open undertaking to the Court at the outset of the hearing which was limited to the disposal of the assets or business of the Company and sought an early hearing. By the end of the interlocutory hearing, the defendants indicated that they were prepared to give the following undertakings to the Court pending the full hearing of the proceedings:

15 2 "1. The Defendants and each of them undertake not to dissipate or dispose of (other than in the ordinary course of business) the assets or business of the fourth Defendant or to wind up the fourth Defendant save on the giving of seven days notice of any intended dissipation, disposal or winding up to the Plaintiff in which case the Plaintiff will have liberty to re-enter this application and to make such further or...