Journalist fired over work from home dispute awarded ?52,000
The newspaper group said last night it intended to appeal the award.
The court had been told Ms Carey was paid off because an arrangement whereby, for child minding purposes, she would work from home for the first edition of the newspaper was not working out.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan, in a reserved judgment, said Ms Carey was working with 'Ireland on Sunday' when contacted in September 1999 by the then Evening Herald editor Paul Drury about becoming political correspondent for the paper.
He found Mr Drury had made a negligent representation to Ms Carey by positively affirming morning working from home arrangements and failing to advise her by his silence of the fact that senior Independent management had serious reservations about it.
Judge Gilligan said this, and the fact that Mr Drury had not advised senior management that Ms Carey could not take up the position if proposed morning working arrangements were not agreed or proved unworkable, was the crucial point in the case.
He said Mr Drury was anxious to retain her services and the agreement over morning working constituted a warranty and an inducement to her to give up her job with Ireland on Sunday.
He was satisfied she had left Ireland on Sunday as a result of the representation made by Mr Drury that she could work from home for the first edition. Without that assurance Ms Carey, who had a young baby, would not have joined the Evening Herald.
No blame attached to Ms Carey as there was no way she could have checked the accuracy of the representation made to her by Mr Drury. She had simply trusted him and relied on what he had said.
"I am satisfied Mr Drury owed the plaintiff a duty of care to avoid making a negligent representation," he said.
He said management's serious reservations should have been communicated by Mr Drury to Ms Carey in compliance with the duty of care which he owed to her to enable her to fully assess the position.
He held that Drury had conveyed to Ms Carey an inaccurate representation as to the true background position. He had failed in this regard and accordingly the court was satisfied Independent Newspapers were guilty of a negligent misrepresentation.
Judge Gilligan said he did not consider that Ms Carey had made out a case for injury to reputation as no aspersion had been cast on her capacity and integrity as a journalist. Judge Gilligan said that while Ms Carey was entitled to succeed in her claim against Independent Newspapers under a number of headings she was not entitled to recover damages under all of them because the claim had arisen out of the same set of circumstances and cause of action.
She was only entitled to recover damages under one heading of claim but could do so from her optimum position which was in respect of breach of warranty and accordingly he awarded her ?52,266 damages, with costs against Independent Newspapers.
Ms Carey joined the Evening Herald in late 1999 and held the position for about six months. Mr Drury's employment terminated just after she had taken up her new position and shortly afterwards a dispute arose when she was asked to come into the Evening Herald office in the early morning.
Ms Carey, who had a young baby at the time, had claimed she could not get a childminder at such an early hour.
After the hearing, Michael Roche, Operations Director of Independent Newspapers, said: "Given the contents of Justice Paul Gilligan's judgment we believe that we have good grounds to appeal and we intend to do so within the 21-day period."
He added: "Our lawyers will also be considering the implications of the judgment for Paul Drury, the former editor of the Evening Herald."
- Ray Managh
