The High Court has reserved judgment on an action by journalist Mairéad Carey alleging wrongful dismissal by Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd.
Ms Carey is seeking damages for alleged breach of contract, wrongful dismissal, negligent mis-statement and/or misrepresentation arising from her treatment while Evening Herald political correspondent. She was appointed to the post in late 1999 and held it for about six months.
Ms Carey claims that her terms of employment provided for her to work from home from 7 a.m. until the first edition deadline, as she had a young baby at the time, and afterwards to work from the Dáil. She was approached about taking the position by its then editor, Mr Paul Drury, whose employment ended just after Ms Carey took up her new position.
A dispute arose when she was asked to come into the Evening Herald office in the early morning. She was told the early-morning working arrangement had not worked out.
The company denies it wrongfully purported to terminate Ms Carey's contract of employment summarily on April 17th, 2000. It submits that by letter of that date, it lawfully terminated her contract of employment on four weeks' notice.
Evidence in the case was heard last week and yesterday. Mr Justice Gilligan, who had been given written submissions by both sides, heard oral submissions from counsel. He then said he was reserving his decision and hoped to deliver judgment before July 31st.
In submissions on behalf of Ms Carey, it was argued the summary termination of her employment was without cause and was in breach of her contract, in particular the agreed working arrangement whereby she would work from home.
Ms Carey's contract made no provision as to notice period and in such circumstances, it was for the court to decide as a question of law the appropriate period, it was submitted.
Independent Newspapers argued that her employment contract did not contain a term that she was entitled to work from home from 7 a.m. until first edition deadline and afterwards to work from the Dáil. No such term was recorded anywhere in writing.
Ms Carey had claimed such an arrangement was expressly agreed with Mr Drury but it was always understood the arrangement was a work practice contingent on both him being editor and on the arrangement working. Evidence before the court was clearly to the effect that a one-month notice period was reasonable, it was also claimed.