O'Donovan v Over-C Technology Ltd & anor (Approved)

2.������ Regrettably, there has been little direct engagement, and no agreement, between the parties.� Consequently, they have each filed written submissions addressing a range of issues, including: the appropriate terms of the proposed interlocutory order; the appropriate directions to facilitate an early trial; the appropriate order on costs; and whether it is appropriate to grant a stay on the proposed interlocutory order pending appeal. Neither side has suggested that an oral hearing is required on any of those issues.�� Hence, this is my ruling on each of them.

4.������ The Over-C companies submit that the six-month period covered by the proposed order should not run from the end of January 2020 but rather from 7 January, because that is the date upon which they purported to terminate Mr O�Donovan�s employment, later paying him one month�s salary from that date in lieu of notice.�

7.������ Any such salary payment is, of course, subject to the deduction of tax in the usual way by operation of law.� Contrary to the submission made on behalf of Mr O�Donovan, I do not believe that it is necessary to include a recital to that effect in the proposed order.

8.������ In summary, since I am not persuaded by the arguments of either side for a different or modified form of order, I will grant an interlocutory injunction in the terms proposed at paragraph 67 of the judgment.�

9.������ Mr O�Donovan would like an early trial and submits that the court should give certain specific directions, and engage in general case management, to that end.� However, he does not identify any grounds of urgency in support of that application.