A claim that a family-run business wrongfully fired a former director was struck out by the Supreme Court, which found that he had voluntarily resigned.

According to a recent Supreme Court judgment, Andrew Lundin Crisson launched legal action against HS & JE Crisson Ltd, his former employer, seeking damages, unpaid wages and repayment of a $50,000 loan.

While he claimed that he was terminated by the company in January 2022 and was owed three years of wages, the company argued that he had voluntarily resigned as both the company’s director and an employee at a directors meeting.

In a decision dated August 10, Assistant Justice Jeffrey Elkinson found wholly in favour of the company, stating that the facts of the case showed a clear and voluntary resignation.

The judge added that the case demonstrated that a “sincere sense of grievance” alone did not translate into a cause of action supported by the law.

Mr Justice Elkinson wrote: “The plaintiff assembled a substantial body of material addressed to the extent of his ongoing work, his personal finances and his contribution to the family enterprise over many decades.

“This material, however sincerely advanced, did not engage the central legal question which this case required him to answer.

“That was whether the resignation letters he signed, two separate letters, on 30 January 2022, were done voluntary.

“Having reviewed the whole of the evidence, I am satisfied they were and no claim for wrongful dismissal arises.”

Mr Justice Elkinson said that by December 2019, the company’s relationship with its banking partners was under “serious strain” as a result of Mr Crisson’s own financial position.

The judge wrote that based on the evidence, Mr Crisson was “substantially indebted” and the bank, treating him as a party related to the company, threatened to close the company’s accounts.

He added: “Absent resolution, the company faced a real prospect of being unable to meet payroll.

“This is corroborated by the company’s own contemporaneous financial correspondence.”

Mr Justice Elkinson wrote that during the 2022 directors meeting, which was recorded, the plaintiff was given an agenda and an explanation of the relevant bylaw, asked relevant questions and signed written letters regarding both his directorship and his role in the company.

He said: “That two distinct documents were prepared and signed is itself evidence of the distinction between directorship and employment.

“This is the very distinction on which the plaintiff’s claim now depends. However, it was understood by everyone in the room, including the plaintiff, at the time.”

Mr Justice Elkinson noted that there were no claims of duress or undue influence, or facts to support such a claim, and that the company directors had acted in response to a real commercial threat because of Mr Crisson’s own financial conduct.

The judge also highlighted correspondence sent in February 2022 in which Mr Crisson asked the company to “try to find a job” for him while acknowledging that it might require reducing staff, and a second message in which he asked to “rescind the resignation”.

Mr Justice Elkinson further found that even if Mr Crisson had been terminated, the company had just cause to do so.

He noted evidence that Mr Crisson was not always found when needed at the store, ran up personal debt at local stores, was poor at managing the debt owed to the stores and local vendors, and continued to drive the company van after his resignation without insurance or the company’s permission.

On the issue of unpaid wages, Mr Justice Elkinson said that evidence showed Mr Crisson’s net wages, as with other senior staff, were reduced to $500 a week from March 2020 because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

He found that Mr Crisson’s wages were paid into his mother’s account at his own request because a court order related to his divorce prevented him from withdrawing money from his own account.

Mr Justice Elkinson also dismissed the claim that Mr Crisson was owed $50,000 from a loan to the company, noting that records showed the payment was not a loan but a partial payment of his own indebtedness to the company.

He wrote: “This was clearly not a loan from him to it.

“The transfer itself records the beneficiary reference as ‘Andrew Debt and Rent’ and the user reference as ‘Crisson Store Debt’.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers