Michel Lafresière v New Mauritius Hotels Ltd (Mauritius)

In a statutory wrongful-dismissal claim, an employer must plead the reasons for dismissal clearly and consistently with the reasons given to the worker. A general assertion that it could take no other course does not plead a misconduct case, because the same no-option requirement applies to poor performance. The Industrial Court must identify the issues, determine whether the alleged misconduct was proved and sufficiently grave, and address relevant explanations and comparative treatment. A judgment must make clear why one party won and the other lost. Where serious allegations remain unresolved and the reasoning does not disclose the basis of dismissal, the appellate court may set the decision aside.

New Mauritius Hotels Ltd terminated Mr Lafresière’s employment immediately after he failed to attend a disciplinary hearing concerning alleged misconduct. He claimed severance allowance. The Industrial Court dismissed his claim on 20 July 2018.

The Supreme Court of Mauritius allowed his appeal, set aside the Magistrate’s decision and awarded the agreed severance amount. Its judgment was handed down on 22 July 2021 and is reported as [2021] SCJ 244. Hotels appealed to the Privy Council, challenging the findings that its defence did not adequately plead the reasons for dismissal and that the Magistrate’s reasons were insufficient. The central issues were whether the pleaded defence properly raised misconduct as the justification for dismissal and whether the Magistrate had adequately determined the relevant statutory questions.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Board upheld the Supreme Court’s decision, including the award of severance allowance in the agreed amount.
2. The purpose of pleadings is to define the issues on which evidence and preparation are based. In a wrongful-dismissal claim, an employer must properly plead the reasons for dismissal, and those reasons must be the same as the reasons given to the worker at the time of dismissal. A plea that the employer could not in good faith take any other course was insufficient by itself to plead dismissal for misconduct. The no-option wording also appears in the poor-performance provision in section 38(3) of the Employment Rights Act 2008. The Board applied the principles in Loveridge and Loveridge v Healey [2004] EWCA Civ 173 and followed the approach affirmed in Lateral Holdings Ltd v Murdamootoo [2021] SCJ 19.
3. It was common ground that the Industrial Court must investigate afresh the truth of the allegations relied on to justify dismissal. A disciplinary committee is not a substitute for a court of law. The employer may rely only on the reasons given at dismissal and on material of which it was, or reasonably should have been, aware at that time, as explained in Smegh (Ile Maurice) Ltée v Persad [2012] UKPC 23.
4. The Magistrate failed to resolve material conflicts in the evidence or make findings on whether the charges were proved, whether the conduct amounted to faute grave, and whether the no-option test was satisfied. He also failed to consider the explanation for non-attendance at the hearing and the allegation that other employees facing similar allegations had been treated more leniently. Rejecting the alleged earlier dismissal did not resolve those issues.
5. Judicial reasons need not be expressed perfectly, but they must make apparent why one party won and the other lost. In light of the seriousness of the allegations and the consequences for the worker, the Supreme Court was entitled to conclude that the Magistrate’s judgment was inadequate and to set it aside. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

1. Privy Council: In [2023] UKPC 38, the Board dismissed Hotels’ appeal and upheld the Supreme Court’s order.
2. Supreme Court of Mauritius: In [2021] SCJ 244, the Court allowed Mr Lafresière’s appeal, set aside the Industrial Court’s judgment and awarded the agreed severance allowance.
3. Industrial Court: The Magistrate dismissed Mr Lafresière’s claim on 20 July 2018.