Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Tonga Law Reports

Koloa v Helu [1999] TongaLawRp 42; [1999] Tonga LR 227 (29 October 1999)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TONGA
Supreme Court, Nuku’alofa

C 1315/98

Koloa

v

Helu

Finnigan J
9, 10, 11, 12, 13 August 1999; 29 October 1999

Employment law — probationary contract — unjustified dismissal
Employment law — reasonableness is implied term of employment contract — employer breached this

The plaintiff was employed by the Tonga Water Board as Chief Production Officer, “conditional on serving a probation period of 6 months”. About four weeks after he started, he was warned about his behaviour, and a little later was told to be sure not to mix his private work with that of the Board. After about six weeks he was one of the recipients of written warning from the General Manager about his performance. Ten days after that a letter was written, purportedly on behalf of all the 21 employees whom he supervised, making specific allegations of dishonesty against him. He was suspended so that the allegations could be investigated. Simultaneously 11 of the 21 employees wrote that the letter of complaint was malicious and incorrect in claiming it had their authority. The 11 claimed that the writer of that letter was wrong and acting from wrong motives. The defendants knew that the writer had been the subject of a bad work report by the plaintiff the previous month. The general manager spoke to some of the employees, and from among the employees to whom he spoke, one wrote him a letter. This employee said that he personally had been involved in four of the five allegations of dishonesty. He joined the original letter-writer in accusing the plaintiff of the fifth allegation and he added two more. At about the same time, the plaintiff wrote a detailed explanation for each of the first five allegations. The Board decided to dismiss the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that he was wrongfully suspended then dismissed from his employment with the second defendant. He claimed that he was dismissed on the ground of stealing the second defendant’s property, and that this was wrongful because he was given no opportunity to offer a defence on his own behalf. He claimed that this caused damage to his reputation and loss of employment and financial hardship from then on for the rest of his life. He claimed three years’ salary, $23,310, plus $10,000 for damage to his reputation.

Held: