In a recent case concerning the unilateral reassignment of an employee, the High Court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining Cork City Council from transferring a senior employee’s duties to another employee without consultation. The Court found that contractual flexibility clauses are subject to the Braganza principle of good faith and rationality.
Our Employment Law & Benefits team examines the decision and highlights the practical steps employers should take when considering changes to an employee’s duties or responsibilities.
What you need to know
- Cork City Council attempted to reassign a senior employee’s duties to another employee without consultation.
- The Court held that contractual flexibility clauses are limited by the Braganza principle of good faith and rationality.
- It was held that the reputational harm in this case would be difficult to quantify and that damages would not provide an adequate remedy.
- The Council did not demonstrate that its transfer of functions to the other employee was of such necessity or urgency that it outweighs the likely harm to the plaintiff.
Background
In Hallahan v Cork City Council[1], the plaintiff, Mr Hallahan worked as Head of Finance in the Finance Department of Cork City Council. The Council’s CEO advised Mr Hallahan in 2026 that she was setting up a new position in the directorate to be called the ‘Head of Transformation’ and that she wanted Mr Hallahan to assume that role.
Mr Hallahan, however, expressed reluctance and suggested other candidates that might be more suitable for the position. He also indicated that he would have to take time to think about the move. The CEO rejected this, saying her decision was already made.
The Council’s senior management team was advised at a meeting that the plaintiff would assume the new role and that he would be replaced by a new Head of Finance, Mr Canty, who had been a subordinate of the plaintiff. The plaintiff retained solicitors who invoked the Council’s grievance procedure. They described the change in position to be a “very significant change to his contracted role” and sought to preserve the status quo. The Council’s solicitors insisted that the reassignment was effective and maintained that the grievance procedure had not been properly commenced, on the basis that Mr Hallahan had not invoked it personally but rather had done so through his solicitors.
The CEO issued a delegation order which transferred to Mr Hallahan the executive powers, functions and duties of his purported new role, the Head of Cost Transformation. On the same day, Mr Hallahan issued injunction proceedings, seeking an interim order to restrain Cork City Council from taking any further steps to treat him as otherwise than employed as Head of Finance and also from assigning his existing duties to any other person. This interim relief was granted.
The CEO decided to appoint Mr Canty to the role of Head of Cost Transformation instead. A new delegation order was made to delegate to him the functions associated with the role. This included new functions, which Mr Hallahan alleged encroached on his duties as Head of Finance. In this way, Mr Hallahan alleged that the delegation breached the interim order achieved through the injunction proceedings. The Council acknowledged the risk of breach and proposed a “doubling-up” arrangement, where both employees enjoyed responsibility for the duties in question, with the CEO acting as arbiter. The Council itself described this as:
unusual, undesirable, inexpedient and unproductive.”
Interlocutory injunction proceedings
In seeking an interlocutory injunction, Mr Hallahan claimed that the Council had humiliated and degraded him by forcing him from his position as Head of Finance without notice or consultation. He further claimed that the Council had subsequently hollowed out his role through the reassignment of his key duties to Mr Canty.
Mr Hallahan relied on Earley v HSE[2] in which the Court of Appeal held that clauses permitting revisions to duties must be read in light of the employee’s job description and did not allow changes as significant as those proposed. Mr Hallahan invoked the Braganza principle, which was confirmed as applying in Irish law in O’Sullivan v HSE[3]. He argued that the contractual discretion to reassign him must be exercised honestly, in good faith, genuinely and without arbitrariness, capriciousness, perversity or irrationality. He alleged the Council had failed to meet this standard.
Ultimately, the issue for determination was whether the delegation of duties to Mr Canty and the consequent reduction of Mr Hallahan’s role as Head of Finance should be permitted pending trial.
The Court applied the test for an injunction, being the Campus Oil/Merck Sharpe and Dohme test and asked three questions:
- Is there a fair question to be tried?
- Are damages an adequate remedy?
- Where does the balance of convenience lie?
The Court held that Mr Hallahan had raised a fair question to be tried on two grounds:
- Whether the Council had breached the implied contractual term identified under the Braganza principle, and
- Whether it had wrongly refused to recognise him as having invoked the grievance procedure.
It was held that the reputational harm in this case would be difficult to quantify and that damages would not provide an adequate remedy.
Finally, despite the Council’s assertions that it faced a significant challenge in managing its finances, the Court found that it did not demonstrate that the immediate transfer of functions to the Head of Cost Transformation was of such necessity or urgency that it outweighed the likely harm to Mr Hallahan. In this way, the balance of convenience favours preserving the existing position until the proceedings are determined.
Order awarded
The Court made an order restraining the Council, pending trial or further order of the Court, from assigning Mr Hallahan’s duties to another person. It indicated that any duplication of functions between the positions of Head of Finance and Head of Cost Transformation would breach the order. Any arrangement of this nature, it said, would likely compound rather than mitigate the professional harm to Mr Hallahan. Essentially, it would create overlapping authority regarding the functions attached to his position.
The Court acknowledged that the injunction would create organisational difficulties for the Council. However, it was held that these were outweighed by the potential harm to Mr Hallahan, given the fair question raised concerning his contractual rights.
Key takeaways
- Even where a contract of employment includes reassignment clauses, such as the right to alter departments, these are subject to the implied Braganza principle. Employers should exercise their discretion honestly, in good faith, genuinely and without arbitrariness, capriciousness, perversity or irrationality.
- The Court interpreted the Council’s actions as amounting to a unilateral decision to reassign Mr Hallahan. Employers should engage in meaningful consultation with affected employees before implementing significant changes to roles.
- The Court indicated that a solicitor’s letter expressly invoking a grievance procedure was at least capable of triggering the procedure and its status quo protections.
Employers should seek expert legal advice to understand their obligations and manage potential legal risks.
Contact our Employment Law & Benefits team
The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.
[1] [2026] IEHC 591
[2] [2017] IECA 158
[3] [2023] IESC 11