The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and age discrimination following termination after 16 years of employment.
The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and exercised its enhanced powers under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, and the evidence supported the employer’s position that the termination resulted from a prolonged work shortage and financial decline leading to redundancy of the role.
The court also held that the 1998 employment contract remained valid and enforceable despite an invalid 2011 contract.
The motion was dismissed and the termination clause in the 1998 agreement governed the notice entitlement.
