Future loss, contribution and the cost of dismissal: Camilleri v Allied Newspapers

The Court of Appeal left in place a substantial award for the unfair dismissal of a senior journalist. The two appeals are relevant to senior exits because they address both the quality of a disciplinary decision and the valuation of longer-term earnings loss. They also show that an unfair-dismissal finding can coexist with a reduction for the employee’s contribution to the circumstances.

The dismissal and the Tribunal’s findings

Ivan Camilleri had been employed on an indefinite, full-time basis since 2004. Allied Newspapers dismissed him on 19 December 2019 following serious misconduct allegations.

The Tribunal criticised the speed and structure of the disciplinary process, including the lack of adequate opportunity to prepare a defence. It also questioned the independence of an appeal to a managing director who had already participated in the disciplinary meeting. Its inquiry extended to the substance and quality of the investigation and the evidence supporting dismissal.

The Tribunal held the dismissal unfair and awarded €171,569. A later correction identified the defendant as Allied Newspapers Limited. That is the company name used in the appellate judgments and in this report.

The employer’s appeal: procedure and substance had both been considered

In appeal 50/2024, the employer argued that the Tribunal had concentrated on procedural shortcomings without properly assessing whether dismissal was substantively justified.

The Court rejected that reading. The Tribunal had examined both the procedure and the merits, including the investigation, the evidence and the circumstances in which the disciplinary conclusion was reached. The employer’s criticism did not establish the alleged legal failure.

This matters when evaluating a disciplinary exit: a statement that serious allegations were investigated does not answer questions about the investigation’s quality, and a complaint about procedure does not necessarily mean that the Tribunal ignored the substance. The actual reasoning must be read.

The award included projected loss and mitigation

The Tribunal used average annual earnings of €50,758 over a nine-year period, producing €456,822. It deducted projected self-employment income of €238,566 and added statutory bonus payments, before applying a 25% reduction for the employee’s contribution. A separate €4,417 moral-damages component brought the total to €171,569.

The projection covered 2020 to 2028. It should not be reported as a finding that the employee was entitled to salary until retirement.

The Court considered the statutory basis for compensation and declined to replace the Tribunal’s assessment with a fresh factual valuation. The employer’s comparisons with limits or approaches in other jurisdictions did not establish that the Maltese award should be displaced. The Court also noted the reputational consequences and publicity associated with this dismissal when discussing its impact.

The employee’s appeal: unfairness did not remove the contribution issue

Camilleri separately challenged the 25% reduction in appeal 51/2024. The Court declined to disturb the Tribunal’s assessment, which included its view of his confrontational attitude towards colleagues.

The employee’s successful challenge to the fairness of dismissal therefore did not produce an award free of any deduction. Equally, that deduction should not be treated as a finding that the headline misconduct allegations relied on to dismiss him had been proved. Those are different questions.

Significance for negotiating a senior exit

For an established employee in a reputation-sensitive occupation, the potential loss may extend beyond a short period of unemployment. Evidence about future earnings, replacement income and the practical effect of the dismissal can materially change the financial assessment.

The case also illustrates why a compensation model should show its assumptions. The projection period, likely earnings, mitigation and any contribution reduction each affected the outcome. The final award was an individual assessment supported by the record, rather than a general multiple of salary for senior staff.

When evaluating settlement, both parties need to consider the strengths of the underlying dismissal case alongside the likely evidence on loss. A finding of unfairness does not automatically establish the amount sought, while evidence of some employee contribution does not necessarily eliminate the employer’s liability.

Related: Good and sufficient cause · Fenech v MFSA · Voortman v VistaJet · Negotiation and settlement