MCCARTHY VRS. GHANA BAUXITE COMPANY LTD. (J4/34/2021) [2021] GHASC 193 (8 December 2021)

MCCARTHY VRS. GHANA BAUXITE COMPANY LTD. (J4/34/2021) [2021] GHASC 193 (8 December 2021)

The respondent was not given a fair hearing as required by law and the employer’s own disciplinary procedures; there was no evidence of proper notice or opportunity to defend himself, and the allegations of misconduct were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The award of damages was not shown to be unreasonable, as the appellant failed to prove the respondent could have mitigated his loss by finding alternative employment.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 193
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent: Daniel McCarthy; Defendant/respondent/appellant: Ghana Bauxite Company Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
8 December 2021
Case Number
J4/34/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed
Legal Topics
Wrongful Dismissal, Fair Hearing, Disciplinary Procedure, Damages for Breach of Contract, Duty to Mitigate Damages
Source Language
English
Employment Law Labour Law Contract Law Wrongful Dismissal Fair Hearing Disciplinary Procedure Damages for Breach of Contract Duty to Mitigate Damages

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel McCarthy

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent

Ghana Bauxite Company Ltd.

Defendant/respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the respondent's employment was wrongful for lack of fair hearing and due process
  2. 2 Whether the award of general damages equivalent to eighteen months’ salary was excessive or unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was not given a fair hearing as required by law and the employer’s own disciplinary procedures; there was no evidence of proper notice or opportunity to defend himself, and the allegations of misconduct were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The award of damages was not shown to be unreasonable, as the appellant failed to prove the respondent could have mitigated his loss by finding alternative employment.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed

Orders

  • General damages equivalent to eighteen months’ salary to the respondent upheld
  • Nominal costs of GHS 5,000.00 awarded to the respondent