| Summary |
INTERIM INJUNCTION – Application for interim reinstatement – Applicant claimed dismissal for alleged serious misconduct unjustified – Respondent claimed no trust and confidence in applicant – Applicant attended meeting with respondent and third party (“SIT”) to answer serious misconduct allegations – Respondent concluded dismissal appropriate after consideration of applicant’s affidavit and verbal responses – Applicant claimed arguable case on three heads – First, whether respondent conducted proper investigation or relied on SIT’s investigation – Second, whether suspension lawful – Third, whether respondent gave full consideration to applicant’s explanations – Respondent claimed urgent suspension necessary in light of serious allegations – Authority found arguable case – Applicant claimed financial loss and importance of vindication put balance of convenience in their favour – Respondent claimed no trust and confidence, deleterious effect on respondent’s commercial relationship with SIT and difficulty of integrating applicant into workplace put balance in their favour – Authority found balance of convenience and overall justice favoured respondent – Found vindication could be sought at substantive hearing – Found reinstatement premature when respondent’s investigation pending – Found damage to respondent outweighed benefit of reinstatement – Interim reinstatement declined – Manager |