Murphy v ION Trading Ireland Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Jordan
• Judgment Date: 08 May 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 288
• Docket Number: [Record No. HP 2026/1248]

Between

Sabina Murphy

Plaintiff

and

Ion Trading Ireland Limited

Defendant

[2026] IEHC 288

[Record No. HP 2026/1248]

THE HIGH COURT

Interlocutory injunction – Strong case to be tried – Balance of justice – Plaintiff seeking interlocutory relief – Whether the plaintiff had established a strong case to be tried

Facts: The plaintiff, Ms Murphy, alleged that she was very badly treated by her employer during her employment. The defendant, ION Trading Ireland Ltd, denied this. The general endorsement of claim of the Plenary Summons stated that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant was for: (1) an order, by way of interlocutory injunction, pending the hearing and determination of the proceedings; (2) damages for breach of contract, including breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and breach of the defendant's contractual duty to provide a safe place of work; (3) damages for wrongful dismissal, arising from the defendant’s repudiatory breach of the plaintiff's contract of employment which entitled the plaintiff to treat herself as constructively dismissed; (4) damages for the defendant's failure and refusal to pay contractual salary and benefits due and owing to the plaintiff; (5) a declaration that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed from her employment with the defendant; (6) damages for loss of earnings, loss of benefits and loss of career prospects arising from the defendant's conduct; (7) damages for harm caused to the professional standing, reputation, and health of the plaintiff; (8) interest pursuant to statute; (9) costs; (10) such further or other relief as the High Court deemed just and equitable. The plaintiff's application for interlocutory relief was grounded on an affidavit which was sworn by her on 9 March 2026.

Held by Jordan J that the plaintiff fell at the first hurdle as she had failed to establish a strong case to be tried; her own evidence was that she resigned her employment. He held that there were statutory remedies provided for the plaintiff and she had not established a substantive cause of action in the proceedings. Even if she had established a strong case to be tried, the court was satisfied that the balance of justice would not favour the granting of the interlocutory relief sought; indeed, the balance of justice came down heavily in favour of the defendant having regard to the law, the employment history and the history of “litigation” instituted by the plaintiff. Jordan J held that it would in all of the circumstances be unjust to grant the plaintiff the interlocutory relief sought by her even if she had established a strong case. The court was satisfied that the application was devoid of merit and smacked of an abuse of the process of the court.

Jordan J dismissed the plaintiff’s application.

Application refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Jordan delivered on the 8 ^th day of May 2026 .

1 . These proceedings were commenced by Plenary Summons on 9 March 2026. The plaintiff alleges that she was very badly treated by her employer during her employment. The defendant denies this emphatically.

2 . The general endorsement of claim of the Plenary Summons states that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is for:

• (1) An order, by way of interlocutory injunction, pending the hearing and determination of these proceedings.

• (2) Damages for breach of contract, including breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence and breach of the defendant's contractual duty to provide a safe place of work.

• (3) Damages for wrongful dismissal, arising from the defendant's repudiatory breach of the plaintiff's contract of employment which entitled the plaintiff to treat herself as constructively dismissed.

• (4) Damages for the defendant's failure and refusal to pay contractual salary and benefits due and owing to the plaintiff.

• (5) A declaration that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed from her employment with the defendant.

• (6) Damages for loss of earnings, loss of benefits and loss of career prospects arising from the defendant's conduct

• (7) Damages for harm caused to the professional standing, reputation, and health of the plaintiff.

• (8) Interest pursuant to statute.

• (9) Costs.

• (10) Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems just and equitable.

3 . The plaintiff's notice of motion which was filed on 9 March 2026 claims the following relief: –

• (1) An order, by way of interlocutory injunction, pending the hearing and determination of these proceedings, restraining the defendant from treating the plaintiff's contract of employment as terminated.

• (2) An order, by way of interlocutory injunction, pending the hearing and determination of these proceedings, directing the defendant to immediately reinstate the plaintiff's monthly salary and contractual entitlements, withheld since 25 February 2026.

• (3) An order extending time, if necessary, for the bringing and prosecution of these proceedings and for the making of the present application, having regard to the interests of justice and the circumstances set out in the grounding affidavit.

• (4) An order granting the plaintiff liberty to serve this notice of motion and the grounding affidavit on the defendant, Ion Trading Ireland Ltd, on short notice, having regard to the urgency of this application and serious risk of irreparable harm arising from the defendant's conduct and breach.

• (5) The plaintiff will undertake to this honourable Court to abide by any order for damages which this honourable Court may make should it subsequently transpire that the defendant has suffered loss by reason of the granting of the interlocutory relief sought herein.

• (6) Such further or other order as to this honourable Court deems just and equitable, including any ancillary orders necessary to facilitate the urgent hearing of the plaintiff's interlocutory application for interim relief.

• (7) The costs of these proceedings.

• (8) Interest pursuant to statute and contract.

4 . The plaintiff's application for interlocutory relief is grounded on an affidavit which was sworn by her on 9 March 2026.

5 . It will be noted from the general endorsement of claim that the plaintiff asserts that the defendant was guilty of a repudiatory breach of the plaintiff's contract of employment which entitled her to treat herself as constructively dismissed. Indeed, at para. 5 of the general endorsement of claim the plaintiff seeks a declaration that she was constructively dismissed from her employment with the defendant.

6 . At para. 4 of the plaintiff's grounding affidavit she avers that the conduct of the defendant “deprived the contract of its substance and amounted, in practical and legal effect, to constructive dismissal”. In her affidavit the plaintiff refers to the fact that she resigned her employment with the defendant. An issue arises as to the date of her resignation but she is clear in her affidavit as to the fact of her resignation. At para. 98 she avers that; –

“In circumstances where it had become clear to me that there was no realistic prospect of restoring my health within the defendant's toxic organisation, I accepted that repudiation and resigned on 23 January 2026.”

At para. 100 the plaintiff avers; –

“I now seek redress on the basis of constructive dismissal as set out in this affidavit”

7 . The plaintiff's evidence on affidavit concerning her resignation from her employment with the defendant — coupled with her allegation of constructive dismissal — is repeated and unambiguous.

8 . Notwithstanding the evidence which she has presented to the court the plaintiff puts forward a different case in her written submissions to the court and asserts (at para. 3) that she did not resign, whether expressly or by implication, nor did she accept any alleged repudiation. In this regard she says that clause 12.3 of the contract expressly requires two months written notice of termination and that no such notice was given – and that accordingly, the contract of employment remains subsisting and capable of enforcement.

9 . In this regard, it is an obvious point to make that the plaintiff is bound by her sworn evidence in the case and that her assertion in her written submissions to the effect that she did not resign her employment is completely at odds with the evidence she has presented to the court.

10 . Mr Colm Casey swore a replying affidavit on behalf of the defendant on 18 March 2026. He is employed as General Legal Counsel with the defendant and is also a qualified barrister having been called to the Bar in 2005 and having practised for the years 2005 to 2011.

11 . The plaintiff swore a supplemental affidavit on 23 March 2026. This supplementary affidavit again repeats the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant repudiated the contract and hollowed it out in substance and in law – such that there was nothing of the contract left.

12 . In the supplemental affidavit the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's replying affidavit seeks to introduce a range of collateral matters relating to alleged performance issues, conduct and parallel statutory processes which are not relevant to the issues before this Court. In fact, the affidavit of Mr Casey – and supporting exhibits – sets out a comprehensive history of the issues arising in the course of the plaintiff's employment with the defendant. This detail is referenced below.

13 . A feature of the plaintiff's evidence on affidavit is the making and repeating of charges of wrongdoing against the defendant without providing any persuasive detail or evidence to support those charges.

14 . It is apparent from the plaintiff's evidence on affidavit that the partner of the plaintiff has suffered from significant illness in recent years which illness has required complex medical treatment. This has required the plaintiff to devote time and effort to his care because of his illness and the...