Mojela v Canmart Ltd & Anor[2023] EWHC 2668 (Ch) (30 October 2023)

Mojela v Canmart Ltd & Anor[2023] EWHC 2668 (Ch) (30 October 2023)

Clause 2.2 of the service agreement did not preclude summary dismissal under clause 21; it only restricted termination by notice within the first 18 months except for specified grounds. The employer was entitled to summarily dismiss the claimant for gross misconduct or other grounds under clause 21, and could rely on alternative grounds for dismissal not stated in the dismissal letter. The claimant's application for summary judgment failed as her construction of the contract was incorrect and the defendants had realistic grounds to defend and counterclaim.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2668 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Louisa Mojela; Defendant: Canmart Ltd; Defendant: Akanda Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (employment/contract) / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Wrongful Dismissal, Repudiatory Breach, Construction of Employment Contracts, Fiduciary Duties, Termination Without Notice, Set Off and Counterclaim
Employment Law Contract Law Company Law Summary Judgment Wrongful Dismissal Repudiatory Breach Construction of Employment Contracts Fiduciary Duties +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louisa Mojela

Claimant

Canmart Ltd

Defendant

Akanda Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (employment/contract) / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the purported summary dismissal of the claimant was a repudiatory breach of the service agreement
  2. 2 Proper construction of clause 2.2 of the service agreement regarding termination rights
  3. 3 Whether the employer can rely on alternative grounds for dismissal not stated in the dismissal letter

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 2.2 of the service agreement did not preclude summary dismissal under clause 21; it only restricted termination by notice within the first 18 months except for specified grounds. The employer was entitled to summarily dismiss the claimant for gross misconduct or other grounds under clause 21, and could rely on alternative grounds for dismissal not stated in the dismissal letter. The claimant's application for summary judgment failed as her construction of the contract was incorrect and the defendants had realistic grounds to defend and counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment refused for the claimant's claims for salary and benefits
  • Summary judgment refused against the defendants' counterclaim