Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
No stay on employment injunction where plaintiff cannot discharge his household and living expenses without it
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in considering outstanding issues in proceedings where it had already granted the plaintiff an employment injunction against the defendants, orders that: (a) the Plaintiff is not entitled to the payment of a liquidated sum in circumstances where he will already have an entitlement to whatever arrears of salary and other benefits have accrued to him; (b) that the period of six months of arrears was in the interests of justice; (c) that there was insufficient reason to take this matter into case management; (d) that there was no reason to depart from the usual rule as to costs; and (e) the balance of convenience is tilted decisively against placing a stay on the interlocutory order pending appeal in circumstances where the plaintiff cannot discharge his household and living expenses without the benefit of the order.
Employment injunction granted in previous decision – parties filed written submissions seeking clarity on a range of issues – no order for liquidated sum as plaintiff entitled to arrears of salary – six months ordered in the interests of justice – insufficient urgency to warrant an early trial being ordered, no case management - nothing in the conduct or substance of the case warrants departing from the usual rule as to costs – application for stay on interlocutory order refused as the balance of convenience rules against it.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
