Court rejects €20m compo bid for 20km move

A former technician at the state laboratory put in a claim for €20m compensation after the lab relocated 20km away.

Justin Harmon’s claim has been dismissed by the High Court, but he now intends to bring his case to the Supreme Court.

Mr Harmon claimed he had a valid contract that entitled him to the €20m arising out of the laboratory’s relocation from Abbotstown in Dublin to the Backweston Laboratory Campus in Celbridge, Co Kildare, in 2005.

Mr Justice Paul Gilligan yesterday struck out Mr Harmon’s claim on grounds including that no reasonable cause of action had been disclosed and that the case was bound to fail.

The action was against the finance minister, the state chemist of the state laboratory, Ireland, and the Attorney General.

The defendants denied Mr Harmon, of Phibsborough Rd, Phibsborough, Dublin was entitled to the payment.

In a preliminary hearing yesterday, Elizabeth Cogan BL, for the State defendants, asked the judge to dismiss Mr Harmon’s action. Counsel said no such contract was ever entered into and argued the claim amounted to an abuse of process and was frivolous and vexatious.

Mr Harmon, who represented himself, opposed the motion to dismiss his claim. He argued that his case should be allowed go to full hearing before the High Court. He said he had a lawful claim, which was of public interest and which gave rise to a legitimate action in law.

He said he had an enforceable and valid contract based on correspondence from his employers and the fact that he had agreed to move when the lab relocated. His claim was “clear, simple, and straightforward”, and he rejected that his action was contrary to the interests of justice.

Mr Justice Gilligan said the claim appeared to be based on correspondence in 2005 between Mr Harmon and the human resources department which the judge said concerned a separate work-related matter. Mr Harmon had then indicated he would agree to relocate to Celbridge if he was paid €20m.

The judge said Mr Harmon believed that a reply from human resources, confirming his letter seeking that payment, amounted to a valid contract or term of his employment.

However the judge said the confirmation letter made reference to the other work-related matter and could not be taken to mean it was agreeing to pay him €20m.

Mr Harmon’s case, the judge said, was “premised on a misunderstanding”. There was no prima facie evidence that Mr Harmon’s former employers had agreed to such a contract, as claimed by Mr Harmon.

The judge, who did not accept the case raised an issue of public importance, said he was quite satisfied to strike out the case on grounds including that no reasonable cause of action had been shown, and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

Following the ruling, Mr Harmon told the court he intends to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.