Guy Hallwright
Sharebroking firm Forsyth Barr was not brought into
disrepute when its senior analyst Guy Hallwright was convicted
for running a man over, and it was unjustified in sacking him,
his lawyer says.
Hallwright is fighting to get his job back at an Employment
Relations Authority hearing in Auckland today, after he was
dismissed from his high-ranking position three months ago.
Hallwright's lawyer Kathryn Beck told the authority that
Hallwright continued to work for Forsyth Barr for two years
after the incident and his ability to do his job was never
compromised.
She pointed to sentencing judge Raoul Neave's comments about
the "vulgar"media coverage of the case, which she said was
never about Forsyth Barr.
"The applicant's [Hallwright's] position is that this was not
something that related to the workplace or the nature of the
role that Guy undertook in any way at all, and there would
have been no connection at all but for the media coverage,"
she said.
"There is no evidence that the respondent [Forsyth Barr] has
in fact been brought into disrepute. We accept that Guy has
been brought into disrepute but the employer has not," Ms
Beck said.
The company could not provide evidence that it had suffered
any damage to its reputation as a result of the case, nor
that it had lost any business.
"The fact that he could and did continue to work is the
strongest evidence that there was in fact no destruction to
the relationship of trust and confidence," Ms Beck said.
Hallwright was dismissed after being sentenced to 250 hours '
community work and ordered to pay $20,000 reparation for
breaking the legs of a man he ran over.
In June, a jury found him guilty of causing grievous bodily
harm with reckless disregard following the incident in
September 2010 in which Hallwright hit Sung Jin Kim with his
Saab.
He drove off, and contacted police later about the crash.
The case, and Judge Raoul Neave's sentence, have been the
subject of intense media scrutiny and criticism from Mr Kim,
who requires ongoing treatment for his injuries.
The hearing continues.
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.