firm, a Supreme Court Justice ruled yesterday.

Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ground said the grounds given as cause were not sufficient to warrant Mr. Perinchief's 1990 dismissal.

And he said that Mr. Perinchief should have received at least three months notice instead of the one month he was served by his former employer, Mr.

Charles Vaucrosson.

"I do not consider that the plaintiff's conduct, taken at its highest, amounted to a repudiation or other fundamental breach of the employer/employee relationship,'' he said "I consider that an attorney at the plaintiff's level in a firm such as the defendant's doing general common law work is entitled to three months.'' Mr. Perinchief, who now has his own law firm, was hired by Vaucrosson's on July 6, 1987.

On August 23, he was given notice that his employment would be terminated as of September 30. He later launched a suit against Mr. Vaucrosson claiming wrongful dismissal and demanding six months wages.

In court, Mr. Vaucrosson argued that it was an implied term of contract that Mr. Perinchief conduct his practice "efficiently and with good business practice.'' He alleged Mr. Perinchief failed to submit daily work memos to the accounts department despite written instructions that he do so. And he said that because Mr. Perinchief failed to take retainers in advance, the recovery of his fees was impeded and a substantial portion had either to be recovered by Court action or written-off entirely.

He further argued that Mr. Perinchief failed to render bills on a timely basis or at all.

Mr. Perinchief countered that he did ensure that daily work memos were completed. He said they were not filled in by himself, but left to his executive secretary.

He contended this system worked well until the secretary left on maternity leave. Mr. Perinchief said no adequate replacement was found and the work memos began to suffer.

With regard to billings, Mr. Perinchief said they also, were looked after by his executive secretary.

Mr. Justice Ground said that as between 60 percent and 70 percent of Mr.

Perinchief's work was legal aid, it was usually billed at the end of a case by the submission of an account to the Legal Aid Committee.

"...I do not think that it struck at the root of the contract of employment,'' he said. "Whether it might have done if he had been warned that he faced dismissal if he continued in this way is another matter, but there is no evidence that he was so warned. Indeed despite signal failures in his record keeping in November 1989,...he was continued in the defendant's employment and even given a raise in salary.'' Mr. Justice Ground ordered that damages be awarded in the amount of Mr.

Perinchief's salary for an additional period of seven weeks and five days -- a total of three months, less a sum which is yet to be determined for mitigation.

Mr. Vaucrosson was represented by Mr. Steven Hankey. Mr. Perinchief was represented by Miss Clare Hatcher.