A recent Supreme Court decision has given clarity to an issue that had generated considerable discussion amongst litigation attorneys in Bermuda.

That decision, rendered by Mr. Justice Kawaley, concerned the issue of whether the jurisdiction of the Courts to hear wrongful dismissal claims had been ousted by the dispute resolution provisions of the Employment Act 2000 ("the Act").

Mr. Justice Kawaley ruled that all citizens have a constitutional right to access to the Courts.

In a judgment marked by his usual ability to reduce a seemingly complex argument to very simple terms, Mr. Justice Kawaley rejected arguments that the Supreme Court of Bermuda had no jurisdiction to entertain wrongful dismissal claims.

Whether or not one agrees with the decision, the certainty that it introduces is to be welcomed.

I know of a significant number of matters in connection with which lawyers were busily readying themselves for battle on just this subject.

The argument was that the Act provided an all-encompassing framework for determining claims for wrongful dismissal.

Complaints progressed through the Inspectors and the Tribunal, both creatures of Part V of the Act. Consequently, the Court had no jurisdiction to hear argument with respect to statutory or common law wrongful dismissal claims.

That was the sole responsibility of the Inspector and Tribunal.

The counter-argument was that the Act did not and could not exclude seeking alternative relief.

The Court's view was that all citizens have a constitutional right of access to the Court for the determination of certain civil rights under Section 6(8) of the Constitution of Bermuda as read with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In order to revoke that right, very clear language was required.

No such clear wording was present in the Act or anywhere else and accordingly, the right of access through the Courts remained.

The Court seemed to be persuaded that particularly with respect to employment law issues, a common law claim for wrongful dismissal was so sufficiently entrenched that it could only be abolished by statute.

So far as the abolition of the right of access to the Courts with respect to these claims is concerned, the Legislature can always proscribe that the Tribunal established under the Act should play a central part in employment-related matters in Bermuda.

It is open to the Legislature to provide that, indeed, the Tribunal should be the only recourse of individuals claiming wrongful dismissal. It has not done so.

One argument against such a determination is that the Courts are familiar with executive contracts providing very large salaries and extremely generous benefits to the executives concerned.

Such contracts are sometimes complex, but sometimes simply concerned with large sums. These are matters best dealt with by the Courts, not Tribunals.

Of course, such views are laden with assumptions, one of which is that Tribunals are not equipped to deal with large and complicated employment matters.

If this is the case, then the real question is why this is so. Once one determines why this is so, then one will have at one's disposal information which could be used to remedy that situation.

One might also take the view that the Courts are so overworked with other civil and commercial matters, that a Tribunal system that has exclusive jurisdiction in employment matters is to be preferred.

These types of questions are common when one is dealing with a new dispute resolution framework. Perhaps these are matters to which our Legislators will give further thought in due course.

In the meantime, the question of access to the Courts in employment matters has been answered, if only temporarily.

Partner C. Jerome Dill is Local Team Leader of the Employment and Immigration Team within the Litigation Practice Group at Appleby Spurling Hunter. Copies of Mr. Dill's columns can be obtained on the Appleby Spurling Hunter website at www.applebyglobal.com.

• This column should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice. Before proceeding with any matters discussed here, persons are advised to consult with a lawyer.