Despite being afforded multiple options, the Plaintiff refused vaccination. As a result, she was placed on unpaid leave in accordance with the Entry Requirement. Subsequently, the policy was withdrawn following changes in public health measures, where vaccination status was no longer required for entry into public premises.

The Plaintiff brought a claim seeking, among others, damages for alleged breaches of constitutional rights, harassment and intimidation, breach of contract, breach of statutory duty, negligence, as well as aggravated and exemplary damages.

The Sessions Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, holding that the Entry Requirement was lawful and consistent with the Government’s policy at the material time. For our alert on the Sessions Court’s decision, please click here.

On appeal, the High Court affirmed the Sessions Court’s decision and dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal. In doing so, the High Court held, inter alia, that:

(a) No constitutional issue arose on the facts of the case;

(b) There was no breach of the employment contract or duty of care by the Defendants;

(c) The Plaintiff had resigned voluntarily;

(d) It was reasonable for the Defendants to impose stringent precautionary measures, including vaccination requirements, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic;

(e) Placing unvaccinated employees on unpaid leave was not unreasonable in the circumstances; and

(f) The Plaintiff suffered no loss or prejudice, and any grievance relating to constructive dismissal ought properly to be pursued before the Industrial Court.

This decision reiterates that employers are entitled to implement reasonable workplace policies, particularly those grounded in public health considerations, without breaching employees’ legal rights. It further underscores that disputes relating to alleged constructive dismissal fall within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, rather than the civil courts.

The Defendants were represented by Partner, Amardeep Singh Toor and Associate, Roseveen Kaur Tyndall.