DWT2660

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00047943 (CA-00058963-005)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court on the 15 April 2025. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 20 January 2026.

The following is the Labour Court's Decision:

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

 This is an appeal by Ms Brogan (the Complainant) against Adjudication Officer’s Decision ADJ-00047943 CA-00058963-005 given under the Organisation of Working Time Act1997 (the Act) in a claim against her previous employer Andrew Currie (the Respondent) that they had breached the Act. The Adjudication Officer held that they had no jurisdiction to inquire into the complaints as they were submitted against the incorrect respondent and the time limit for submitting the complaints against the correct respondent had expired.

The complaint was lodged with the WRC on 21 September 2023, appealed to the Labour Court 15 April 2024 and a hearing was held on 20 January 2026.   There are a number of linked cases PW/25/40, PW/25/41, WTC/25/32 and WTC/25/34. At the commencement of the hearing the Complainant indicated to the Court that she would proceed by way of submission.

2 Preliminary issues

The   Complainant queried why the court was not hearing two of her cases. The Court advised that one had been withdrawn at Adjudication and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to hear it. The second case was under the Industrial Relations Act and that had not proceeded to hearing at Adjudication and therefore there could not be appealed to the Labour Court.

Mr Murray BL for the Respondent raised as a preliminary issue the fact that the correct employer had not been identified. Both parties agreed that the Court would hear them on this preliminary issue in the first instance.

3 Summary of Complainants submission on the preliminary matter.

 The Complainant submitted that she wished to make an application for a change of name. She submitted that Mr Currie made the decision to dismiss her and is the Director of the company. She submitted that the error arose from ambiguity as the company are using different names and titles in different forums. In the Complainants contract the employer is named as AC Human Capital (Ireland) Ltd whereas in her payslip it is ACH Capital Limited. The Complainant accepted that the WRC form stated her employer was Mr Andrew Currie. She had retained a solicitor who had prepared the WRC complaint form relying on documentation she provided arising from her employment   Mr Currie is a director of the company and his email address has @achuman and no reference to Ach Capital Limited which further added to the confusion.

The Complainant submitted that this ambiguity was deliberately maintained by the Respondent. Despite the alleged incorrect naming the correct entity had full notice of the proceedings and there was no disadvantage to the Respondent. The Complainant opened to the Court a number of cases in support of her position that in this case the correct party had notice and engaged, no prejudice would result, the error was bona fide, and the substance of the complaint remained unchanged.  The Complainant noted that in Travelodge Management Ltd the Court addresses the substitution of an incorrect legal entity after the limitation period had lapsed. In the case to hand a stranger is not being introduced to the proceedings but she is seeking to correct a misnomer of a Respondent who had been fully on notice and actively engaged in the litigation from the outset.

 4 Respondent’s submission on the preliminary issue

Mr Murray BL for the Respondent submitted that the Labour Court lacks any jurisdiction to entertain the Complainant’s claims in circumstances where the Respondent was simply never her employer. This is not just a clerical error it is a fundamental error and allowing the Complainant to pursue a separate claim against separate legal entity when the claim would be statute barred goes against the dicta in O’ Higgins v UCD and the Labour Court [2013] IEHC 431.  Mr Murray Bl opened the case of Sandy Lane Hotel Limited v Times Newspaper [2011] 3 IR 344 in which an application was made to amend the name of the Defendant. In that case the court considered what the words clerical error must mean and held that “this is not, in my view, a clerical error. The error here arose due to a mistaken belief and a failure to ascribe any significance to the change of name of 1977.”

 In the case before this Court the issue is an error by the Complainant’s then legal advisor and not a clerical error within the legal meaning. The Court is being asked to substitute one legal entity for another as a result of the Complainant’s legal advisor’s failure and /or error.  In Travelodge Management Limited v Sylwia Wach EDA1511 the Labour court noted that “the preponderance of authority is that the Superior Courts will not add or substitute a party to proceedings where the limitation period in the action has expired as against that party.”

 Mr Murray submitted that the fundamental flaw with the complaints are not merely technical and the Complainant lacks any locus standi to pursue the complaints.

5 Discussion and Decision

In terms of the documents provided to the Court by the Complainant and or the Respondent none of the documents identified the Respondent in this case as the Employer. Even in emails sent by Mr Currie he is identified as a Director and the Company name is also on the emails. His name is not on the contract as the employer nor is it on the payslips as the employer.  On the same day that the WRC form was submitted identifying Mr Currie as the employer, the Complainants then legal advisors wrote to the correct Respondent in their role as her employer. There was no evidence before the Court as to how it came to be that the incorrect name was on the form.

While the Complainant raised issues around the variations of the correct company name that were used none of those variations were Andrew Currie.  The requirement under the legislation is that a complaint must be submitted within six months therefore the time limit for making a case against the correct Respondent has passed. While no evidence was opened to the Court it is clear based on the submissions both written and oral that Mr Currie was not the employer.

In the circumstances the Court considers that it has no option but to find that the complaint was taken against the wrong Respondent and that it is not in a position to substitute an alternative Respondent.

 The appeal fails. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

 The Court so decides.       

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
TH	______________________
10 February 2026	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.