Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Caroline  O'Connell

Lionbridge International Unlimited Company

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Stephen Moran BL instructed by Nicky Lynch, Kearney Solicitors

Mark Curran BL instructed by Aoibheann Durkin, Mason, Hayes and Curran

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00069431-001

20/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00069431-002

20/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00069431-003

20/02/2025

The Complainant commenced employment on 6 June 2000. Her employment was terminated as of 8 November 2024 by reason of redundancy. The Complainant’s position was that of Managing Director, EMEA GLT for the Respondent. She asserts that her dismissal was unfair.

The Complainant was initially employed as a localisation project manager with the Respondent on 6 June 2000 with a salary of IR £30,000 per annum. She was promoted several times during her career with her final promotion being to the position of Managing Director, EMEA GLT.

In September 2022, her base salary was confirmed at €275,000 per annum together with participation in the Respondent’s Management Bonus Plan and participation in the HIG Equity Programme.

On 7 March 2024, in addition to her base annual salary, the Complainant was awarded a discretionary cash bonus payment of €108,075 out of a maximum of €165,000 (being 60% of her bonus eligible salary).

By email dated 27 July 2024, John Fennelly, the Respondent’s CEO and the Complainant’s manager announced an impromptu reorganisation which meant that many of the Complainant’s responsibilities and duties would be radically altered with immediate effect. The Complainant was, in effect, unilaterally demoted without notice, consultation or cause from her position as Managing Director. There was no warning, discussion or engagement prior to this demotion. Indeed, at no point did the Respondent advise of any (revised) terms of employment or job description after this drastic change.

On 29 July 2024, her new manager set up a call with the Complainant on the subject of onboarding during which he expressed surprise that Mr. Fennelly, the CEO, had not spoken to her about her new role. The Complainant subsequently spoke with Mr. Fennelly on 2 August 2024 on a call he set up to “catch up”. During the call Mr. Fennelly was boarding a plane from San Francisco. Mr. Fennelly suggested that he did not include the Complainant in the reorganisation plan as she was on holiday (notwithstanding that his restructuring meetings likely took place at least a week before). The Complainant queried what her proposed new role would be only to understand that it would effectively mean a demotion to a lower role. The conversation was short and terse but it was clear to the Complainant that Mr. Fennelly would forge ahead with his plan one way or another.

Shortly after the call, the Complainant was advised by a senior colleague within Respondent that she was the only MD targeted by Mr. Fennelly.

The Complainant was required to take an unexpected and medically certified period of sick leave of 3 weeks during August 2024 keeping the Respondent updated on her progress each week. The Complainant then sought to have recourse to the Respondent’s grievance procedure in respect of her demotion and the fact that following the July announcement she simply did not know what her role within the organisation was or would be.

During that process, Mr. Fennelly contacted the Complainant directly on 12 September 2024. During the course of that telephone conversation Mr. Fennelly appeared to criticise the Complainant for taking sick leave and, as a senior manager and executive team member, for seeking to pursue a grievance. By letter dated 25 September 2024, Ms. Jacinta Sheils, senior HR director, Europe, confirmed the Respondent’s decision not to uphold the grievance. Part of the rationale for that finding was that: “There has been no direct change to your current role, you are still the MD of Europe.”

The Complainant then pursued an appeal, by letter dated 2 October 2024, in respect of the grievance outcome. The appeal outcome, which did not uphold her original grievance, was communicated by letter dated 7 October 2024 by Ann Lazarus-Barnes, Chief People Officer for Respondent.

Ten days after assuring the Complainant that her 24-year career with Respondent was stellar and promising to figure out a way forward, the Employer sent a notification of potential redundancy dated 17 October 2024. That letter confirmed that a formal consultation process would be carried out over the coming weeks during which the Company would endeavour to find a suitable alternative role for the Complainant. During the redundancy consultation process, the Complainant was asked to take a step back from her duties and was effectively put on garden leave.

By letter dated 17 October 2024, the Complainant raised some concerns with the redundancy notification. She said that in order to engage meaningfully with the redundancy process, she was required to understand how the Respondent perceived her role and accordingly requested a copy of her terms and conditions of employment.

The Complainant sought to engage as best she could with the redundancy process. Nevertheless, as appeared inevitable, by letter dated 8 November 2024, the Respondent notified her of the outcome of the redundancy consultation process and confirmed that the role of Managing Director, EMEA GLT in the Company was redundant as of 8 November 2024. The Complainant then sought to pursue an appeal against the redundancy decision. The appeal was made by letter dated 15 November 2024. It was not heard until 7 January 2025. Mr. Stephen Scully, SVP of Language Services, and an employee of Respondent, and Mr Tobin’s direct report, heard the appeal and did not overturn the decision to dismiss.

The Respondent conceded that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

CA-00069431-001:

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 provides that “the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

Section 6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 provides as follows:

4)     Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

(a)   the capability, competence or qualification of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do,

(b)   the conduct of the employee,

(c)    the redundancy of the employee, and

(d)   the employee being unable to work or continue to work in the position he held without contravention (by him or by his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under any statute or instrument made under statute.

Section 6(6) of the Act states as follows:

“In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly of mainly from one or more grounds specified in subsection (4) of this section or that there were other substantial grounds for justifying the dismissal”.

It was not in dispute between the parties that the Complainant was dismissed. In such circumstances, the burden rests with the employer, pursuant to Section 6(6) of the Act, to establish that the dismissal was fair. However, as the Respondent conceded at the outset of the hearing that the dismissal was not fair, I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed.

CA-00069431-003:

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, states:

4.—(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be—

(a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week,

(b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks,

(c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks,

(d) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for ten years or more, but less than fifteen years, six weeks,

(e) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for fifteen years or more, eight weeks.

While the Complainant stated that she was not provided with a detailed breakdown of the final payment made to her by the Respondent, I am satisfied, based on the evidence presented, that her statutory minimum notice entitlement—namely eight weeks’ pay—was included in that payment.

Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00069431-001:

I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed for the reasons set out above.

Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, in relevant part, states that:

(1) Where an employee is dismissed and the dismissal is an unfair dismissal, the employee shall be entitled to redress consisting of whichever of the following the adjudication officer, considers appropriate having regard to all the circumstances:

(a) re-instatement by the employer of the employee in the position which he held immediately before his dismissal on the terms and conditions on which he was employed immediately before his dismissal together with a term that the re-instatement shall be deemed to have commenced on the day of the dismissal, or

(b) re-engagement by the employer of the employee either in the position which he held immediately before his dismissal or in a different position which would be reasonably suitable for him on such terms and conditions as are reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(c) (i) if the employee incurred any financial loss attributable to the dismissal, payment to him by the employer of such compensation in respect of the loss (not exceeding in amount 104 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of this Act) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances,

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining the amount of compensation payable under that subsection regard shall be had to—

(a) the extent (if any) to which the financial loss referred to in that subsection was attributable to an act, omission or conduct by or on behalf of the employer,

(b) the extent (if any) to which the financial loss referred to in that subsection was attributable to an act, omission or conduct by or on behalf of the employee,

(c) the measures (if any) adopted by the employee or, as the case may be, his failure to adopt measures, to mitigate the loss aforesaid,

(d) the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in subsection (1) of section 14 of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice relating to procedures regarding dismissal approved of by the Minister,

(e) the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the said section 14,

(f) the extent (if any) to which the conduct of the employee (whether by act or omission) contributed to the dismissal.

3) In this section—

“financial loss”, in relation to the dismissal of an employee, includes any actual loss and any estimated prospective loss of income attributable to the dismissal and the value of any loss or diminution, attributable to the dismissal, of the rights of the employee under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 1973, or in relation to superannuation;

“remuneration” includes allowances in the nature of pay and benefits in lieu of or in addition to pay.

The Remedy

In deciding on a suitable remedy, I must firstly consider reinstating or re-engaging the Complainant.

In making this decision, I have regard to the findings of the Supreme Court in An Bord Banistiochta, Gaelscoil Moshiolog v The Labour Court, where it was stated that “the remedy of reinstatement is exceptional in nature,involving as it does the imposition of a contractual relationship which is not only personal, but involves a high level of mutual trust and confidence, on an unwilling party…. It is wrong to view reinstatement simply as punishment for wrongdoing on the part of the employer”

Considering the foregoing, I am satisfied, based on the evidence presented to me, that the trust and confidence required for the resumption of an employment relationship no longer exists.  Accordingly, I have decided to make an award of compensation.

The Calculation of the Complainant’s “Remuneration”

In assessing the amount of compensation to award, I must firstly calculate the Complainant’s “remuneration” in accordance with the Act.

·       Salary, Pension and Ancillary benefits

I note that she earned a base salary of €275,000 per year at the time of her dismissal and that she also benefitted from an employer pension contribution of 5%, namely €13,750. I also note that the Respondent paid for her health insurance in the amount of €1,776 annually as well as her mobile phone in the amount of €240 annually. I find that all of these elements of her package constitute “remuneration” for the purposes of the Act.

In addition, the Complainant asserted that her unvested RSUs as well as the bonus she received annually should be deemed “remuneration”.

She is also seeking to include, as part of the award, expenses relating to (a) counselling undertaken following the loss of employment and (b) pension management/advisory fees incurred when reorganising her pension arrangements after the termination of employment.

·       Bonus

In considering whether the Complainant’s bonus constitutes “remuneration” as set out in the Act, I have carefully reviewed and considered both the Discretionary Management Bonus Plan as well as the written submissions provided to me by both parties after the hearing. The Respondent asserted that the bonus was discretionary and therefore does not form part of remuneration. The Complainant on the other hand stated that the bonus was an integral and regular component of her earnings and should properly be included.

In considering whether the Complainant’s bonus in this case amounts to “remuneration”, I note that although the Act states that “remuneration” includes “allowances in the nature of pay and benefits in lieu of or in addition to pay”, the definition does not remove the clear difference between pay that is fixed and clearly due to an employee, and payments that depend on conditions being met or remain at the employer’s discretion.

A distinction must therefore be drawn between:

-          Guaranteed or contractual earnings to which the employee has an enforceable entitlement; and

-          Payments which remain contingent upon the exercise of employer discretion.

This distinction was considered by the UK Court of Appeal in Commerzbank AG v Keogh (High Court, 2017), where the Court examined the nature of discretionary bonus schemes and emphasised that the existence of discretion — even where bonuses had historically been paid — does not of itself create an enforceable entitlement. The Court held that where discretion is genuine and not exercised irrationally or capriciously, an expectation of payment does not convert a discretionary scheme into a contractual right.

While I recognise that Commerzbank is a UK case, the reasoning is persuasive. Specifically, it states that:

-          Past payment does not extinguish discretion.

-          Expectation does not equate to entitlement.

-          A bonus subject to operative discretion remains contingent until declared or crystallised.

Applying that reasoning to the definition of “remuneration” in the Act, and having regard to the following points in respect of the instant case, I note that:

-          No 2024 bonus had been declared, approved or quantified prior to dismissal.

-          The Respondent’s bonus scheme documentation afforded discretion to them.

-          The Complainant’s expectation of payment arose from historical practice rather than enforceable right. While that expectation may have been reasonable, it does not create a statutory entitlement.

Accordingly, I find that the Complainant’s discretionary bonus does not meet the definition of “remuneration” as set out in the Act.

·       Loss of equity participation/RSUs (Restricted Stock Units)

The Respondent highlighted that the Complainant’s employer is Lionbridge International Unlimited Company whereas the RSU Agreement is with Lionbridge Technologies LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

In circumstances where the RSU Agreement is not with the named Respondent, who dismissed the Complainant, I cannot find that RSUs form part of “remuneration” in respect of the instant case. They represent a separate corporate arrangement rather than a benefit provided by the employer who effected the dismissal.

·       Other expenses incurred as a result of the dismissal

As highlighted above, the Complainant is also seeking to include, as part of the award, expenses relating to (a) counselling undertaken following the loss of employment and (b) pension management/advisory fees incurred when reorganising her pension arrangements after the termination of employment.

I find however that neither category of expense falls within the statutory concept of “remuneration” for the purposes of calculating financial loss under the Acts.

First, counselling expenses arise from the complainant’s personal response to the circumstances of the dismissal. While I do not doubt that the loss of employment may cause significant stress or distress, the Unfair Dismissals Acts does not provide for compensation for personal injury, distress, or emotional harm. Such losses cannot be said to constitute “remuneration” that would have been earned under the contract of employment but for the dismissal. They therefore fall outside the scope of “financial loss” under the legislation.

Second, the pension management or advisory fees claimed by the Complainant similarly do not constitute “remuneration”. While pension contributions made by an employer form part of an employee’s remuneration package where they arise as a contractual benefit of employment, the expenses incurred by the Complainant in obtaining advice or in restructuring her pension arrangements after the termination of employment are consequential financial decisions taken following dismissal. They are not payments that the Complainant would have received from the Respondent as part of her “remuneration”, nor are they benefits lost directly under the contract of employment.

The statutory calculation of “financial loss” requires an assessment of “remuneration” lost as a result of the dismissal. The counselling expenses and pension advisory fees claimed here are not “remuneration” that the Complainant would have earned or received from the Respondent, but rather post-dismissal personal expenditures.

Accordingly, while I recognise that such costs were incurred by the Complainant following the loss of her employment, they do not fall within the statutory definition of “remuneration” and therefore cannot be included in the calculation of compensation under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015.

Considering all of the foregoing, I find that the basis for the calculation of the award of compensation is a weekly figure of €5,591.65 (€290,766 per annum), and includes the Complainant’s annual salary, the employer pension contribution, her private health cover and mobile phone expenses as set out above. The maximum award permissible under the Act is therefore €581,532, namely 104 weeks’ pay.

The “Financial Loss” Attributable to The Dismissal

In calculating the “financial loss” attributable to the dismissal from 8 November 2024, I note that Charleton J in Panisi, in assessing loss, stated as follows: 

My task is to assess the financial damage which the dismissal has brought about and then to place the measure of that damage against the maximum amount of compensation that is available. In the event that the compensation that is available, amounting to 104 weeks remuneration, is less than that sum, then that is the measure of damages. Where the quantum of damage is more, then the jurisdiction is limited to that maximum and the amount of damages must thus be reduced to that maximum sum. Where the measure of damages on dismissal is more than the maximum but contributory fault is found in respect of the dismissal against the employee, the reduction is on the totality of those damages, and not on the maximum award. If the result is to reduce compensation within the maximum award, that sum is appropriate. Where the reduction in total damages for contributory fault puts the damages above the maximum award, then the maximum award is the correct measure of compensation for unfair dismissal.

As set out above, I must therefore next assess the overall loss attributable to the dismissal. I have calculated this, as set out below, by deciding on what date the Complainant was dismissed in the first instance prior to assessing her financial loss and then examining whether or not the statutory redundancy payment she received should be deducted from the ultimate award.

-          The date of dismissal

In deciding from what date the Complainant’s financial losses accrue, I note that she was dismissed on 8 November 2024 and was paid eight weeks’ salary in lieu of notice. In deciding that this was the dismissal date, I have regard to the decision of the Labour Court in Michael D’Arcy and Action Health Enterprises (UD/19/41) and the views of Dr Mary Redmond who states as follows in ‘Dismissal Law in Ireland’, at paragraph 21.77.

‘If a contract lays down a notice period, it will technically be a breach of contract to give pay in lieu of notice unless this right is reserved to the employer. If it is, and an employee accepts payment of wages in lieu of notice, the date of dismissal will be the date on which termination takes effect, as the contract will have been determined in accordance with its terms. If there is no right to give pay in lieu of notice in the contract, the EAT will treat the case as a no notice one and will add on the contractual or statutory notice which ever is the greater.

In the instant case, the employer had a clear contractual entitlement to issue payment in lieu of notice, and the Complainant accepted that payment. Accordingly, the dismissal took effect on 8 November 2024 and the “financial loss” accrues from then.

-          The “financial loss” from the date of dismissal to the start date with her new employer

The Complainant was unemployed for a period of 25.571 weeks (or 25 weeks and four days) following her dismissal on 8 November 2024. Her “financial loss” in respect of this period is therefore €142,984 (€5,591.65 * 25.571)

-          The “financial loss” after the start date with her new employer

The Complainant commenced working with her new employer on 6 May 2025 on a greater salary than what she earned with the Respondent. As the Complainant’s “remuneration”, as defined by the Act, with her new employer exceeded that of her “remuneration”, as defined by the Act, with the Respondent, there is no financial loss after 6 May 2025 and it is reasonable to expect that no such loss will arise in the future.  

I find therefore that her “financial loss” ceases entirely from that date.

-          The statutory redundancy payment

Prior to moving to calculate the award, I must also consider Mr. Curran BL’s argument in his supplemental submission that I should deduct the statutory redundancy payment made to the Complainant, in line with what he asserted was the approach of Charleton J in JVC Europe Ltd v Panisi [2011] IEHC 279.

At the outset, I acknowledge, as Mr. Curran BL highlighted, that there is conflicting case law on this issue and that the interaction between statutory redundancy payments and compensation for unfair dismissal has not always been approached consistently. I also recognise that, at first glance, it may appear odd that a statutory redundancy lump sum would not automatically be deducted in circumstances both where an award is being made for unfair dismissal and where there is no genuine redundancy. However, in my view, the legislation provides a clear and specific definition of “financial loss,” and that definition guides my analysis. It is only in circumstances where a loss of up to the statutory maximum of 104 weeks has been calculated—creating a real risk of double recovery—that the question of deducting statutory redundancy properly arises.

In the instant case, the Complainant’s financial loss is 25.571 weeks’ remuneration, as set out above—well below the statutory maximum of 104 weeks.

The statutory redundancy lump sum is a distinct statutory entitlement, accrued over the course of the Complainant’s service and vesting upon termination; it is not compensation for post‑dismissal loss. This is clear from the Act, which defines “financial loss,” in relation to the dismissal of an employee, as including:

any actual loss and any estimated prospective loss of income attributable to the dismissal, and the value of any loss or diminution, attributable to the dismissal, of the rights of the employee under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 1973, or in relation to superannuation.

The Panisi decision involved an award at the statutory ceiling of 104 weeks’ remuneration. At that point, credit had to be given for monies already paid on termination to avoid double recovery. The judgment does not, in my view, require the deduction of statutory redundancy where the compensation awarded does not approach the statutory maximum. Rather, it addresses only a situation where the outer limits of someone’s jurisdiction to award compensation are reached and must ensure that the total combined payments do not exceed what the legislation permits.

As no such risk arises in the instant case, and having regard to the definition of “financial loss” set out above, I am satisfied that the statutory redundancy lump sum should not be offset against the Complainant’s compensatory award. It remains a separate statutory entitlement.

Accordingly, the maximum the Complainant can be awarded is the “financial loss” she incurred during the period that she was unemployed from 8 November 2024 to 6 May 2025, namely €142,984, without any deduction in respect of the statutory redundancy payment she received, as outlined above.

Calculation of award

As set out above, I have found that the Complainant’s overall “financial loss” attributable to the dismissal is €142,984. I must now examine if there is any basis for a “reduction .. on the totality of those damages” as set out by Charleton J in Panisi.

In this regard, the Respondent’s representative highlighted that as the Complainant had failed to sufficiently mitigate her loss, any award should reflect this and should be capped at four weeks’ pay.

In considering this assertion, I note that there is conflicting case law around the calculation of an award of compensation with many decisions focusing solely on the efforts of a Complainant to mitigate their loss and appearing to disregard the conduct of the employer in relation to the dismissal.

In my view, a decision to focus solely on the attempts to mitigate loss is at odds with both the legislative provisions and the views of the Adjudication Officer in ADJ 32667, where, in calculating the award of compensation, she stated, inter alia, that: 

“in considering compensation, regard must be had to all of the subsections of Section 7-and the tests are not confined to the efforts of the former employee-or the Complainant in this case. In circumstances where the Respondent is found not to have met the tests set out in subsections (c) and (d) …. and the Complainant made no contribution to the decision to dismiss her under (a) (b) or (f) It would be wholly unjustified to penalise the Complainant solely for a conclusion that she did not make a sufficient effort of mitigate her losses where the balance of unfairness and failure to comply with the terms of Section 7 as a whole lie squarely with the Respondent.” 

In considering the requirement on the Complainant to mitigate her loss, as set out in section 7(2) ( c), I have regard to the very senior level at which she was employed and recognise that there are typically relatively few roles available at that level. This necessarily narrows the range of realistic alternative positions. On the basis of my own experience and applying the findings of the Court of Appeal in London Underground v Edwards (No.2) [1998] IRLR 364, as applied in Benedict McGowan and Others v The Labour Court and Others [2010] 21 ELR 277, that expert tribunals “do not sit in blinkers and are entitled to make use of their own knowledge and experience in the industrial field, I am of the view that in the instant case it would not be realistic to expect extensive documentary evidence in the form of numerous job applications or evidence of multiple interviews.

Having considered the Complainant’s evidence regarding the steps she took to secure alternative employment, including numerous specific examples of engaging with her professional contacts and networks, as well as with named head-hunters and recruitment agents, I am satisfied that these steps constituted reasonable efforts to obtain alternative employment in the circumstances.

I also note that the Complainant took a period of holiday in April 2025 while she was unemployed and after she had accepted the offer of her new role. However, had she remained in employment during that period, she would have continued to receive her salary from the Respondent. In these circumstances and having regard to the principle that an employee is not required to act unreasonably in seeking to mitigate their loss, I do not find that this short period should have any impact on the Complainant’s entitlement to recover her financial loss.

I further note that the Complainant secured her new role within six months of the termination of her employment which, having regard to the seniority of the position she obtained and the relatively limited number of roles available at that level, I consider to represent a reasonable period within which to obtain alternative employment and a strong indication of proactive and effective mitigation.

In assessing the remaining factors under section 7(2), I note that no evidence was presented to suggest that the Complainant contributed in any way to her dismissal. The Respondent has conceded that the dismissal was unfair, and, given the reasonableness of the Complainant’s efforts to secure alternative employment and the absence of any contributory conduct on her part, I am satisfied that her financial loss arises entirely from the Respondent’s actions.

Considering all of the foregoing, I find no basis for any reduction “on the totality of those damages” in this case.

I therefore direct that the Respondent pay €142,984 to the Complainant in respect of the unfair dismissal.

CA-00069431-002:

This complaint was withdrawn.

CA-00069431-003:

I find that the complaint is not well founded for the reasons set out above.