EDA2625

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00050900 (CA-00062564-001).

BACKGROUND:

The Employee appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2021 on 24 October 2025. A Labour Court hearing took place on 17 June 2026

The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

1. This is an appeal by Ms. Leticia Valeria Villaca against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00050900/CA-00062564-001) made under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2021 (the Acts) in a claim against Brown Thomas Arnotts Limited in which she alleged she had been discriminated against. The Adjudication Officer’s decision is dated 18 September 2024. In that decision the Adjudication Officer held that he did “not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint”.
2. For ease, the parties are referred to in the same way as at first instance. Hence, Ms. Valeria Villaca is referred to as “the Complainant” and Brown Thomas Arnotts Ltd as “the Respondent”.
3. A hearing of the Court was held on 17 June 2026 in Dublin. The Complainant attended in person, unaccompanied. A Portuguese interpreter was provided to assist the Complainant. The Respondent was represented by Ibec. The Court heard submissions from both parties.
4. The Complainant had referred a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 2 April 2024 in circumstances where the parties were agreed that the last time the Complainant had worked in the Respondent’s premises was 3 January 2021. A preliminary matter therefore arose in relation to time limits.

Submission of the Complainant

5. The Complainant made a series of detailed written submissions to the Labour Court on 19 December 2024, 16 April 2025, 4 June 2026, and 8 June 2026. Appended to those submissions were a multiplicity of documents which the Complainant maintained justified an extension of time in order that she could proceed with her substantive claim. The documents addressed issues to do with the Complainant’s English language and legal studies, immigration status, driving licence applications, medical records, personal injury details and her employment experience before and after her placement with the Respondent.
6. In advancing an argument that the Labour Court should hear her substantive case, the Complainant relied on the Statute of Limitations Act 1957, case law from the High Court which extended time in a defamation case “in the interests of justice”, and case law of the WRC and the Labour Court which extended time for reasonable cause and exceptional circumstances respectively. The Complainant considered that the Labour Court Rules afforded the Labour Court discretion to extend time, such that her claim should be permitted to proceed, but was not able to identify the specific rule on which she relied.
7. The Complainant’s position was that because her understanding of the alleged discrimination developed over time, and because the effects of the discrimination were ongoing, an extension of time should be granted. She believed that the circumstances relied upon provided an explanation for the delay and satisfied the applicable test for reasonable cause.

Summary Position of the Respondent

8. The Respondent’s position was that the Complainant was statute barred from proceeding with her claim in circumstances where the complaint to the WRC was not submitted for over three years after the Complainant had last been assigned to work in the Respondent’s premises. The Respondent considered that the time limit issue should be determined as a preliminary point.
9. The Respondent further submitted that the Complainant “has not discharged the burden of proof that reasonable cause exits [sic] for an extension to the six-month deadline and accordingly, this case must fail”.
10. Notwithstanding the time limit point, the Respondent, in its submissions, contended that the Complainant was never an employee of the Respondent, but was at all times an agency worker, employed by an employment agency, and placed with the Respondent.

Relevant Law

11. Section 77(1) of the Acts provides that a person who claims to have been discriminated against may seek redress by referring the case to the Director General of the WRC.
12. Section 77(5) provides that:

                                 (a) subject to paragraph (b), a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after a period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case                                          relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.

                                 (b) On application by a complainant the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission or Circuit Court, as the case may be, may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if                                            for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

13. Rule 54 of the Labour Court Rules 2024 provides that: -

                                 “The Court may, in its discretion, give a preliminary ruling on any aspect of the case where it is satisfied that time and expense may be saved by the giving of such a ruling and/or where it has the potential to be determinative of the case”.

14. The Court decided that it would hear and decide the preliminary matter in relation to time limits in the first instance.

Deliberations

15. It was not disputed between the parties that the last date on which the Complainant worked on the Respondent’s premises was 3 January 2021. The parties agreed that the latest date for any act of discrimination or alleged contravention of the Act was therefore 3 January 2021. The Act requires that a claim for redress be referred within six months of the latest date of discrimination extendable to a maximum of 12 months for reasonable cause. The Complainant referred her claim to the WRC three years and three months after the latest date of alleged discrimination.
16. While the Respondent (and the Adjudication Officer) considered “reasonable cause” to be a relevant consideration, the Court is not required to consider reasonable cause in circumstances where the Acts provide that a claim for redress must be referred within a period “not exceeding 12 months”. There is no provision in the Acts for any claim to be referred outside the period of 12 months under any circumstances.
17. The Labour Court is a creature of statute, and its powers and duties are derived solely from statute. The Labour Court cannot assume a jurisdiction which is not conferred on it by statute and the Court does not have a “discretion” to vary or extend the time limits set out in relevant statutes.
18. A failure on the part of the Complainant to refer her claim in time deprives the Adjudication Officer, and this Court on appeal, of jurisdiction to investigate the claim.

Determination

19. In circumstances where the claim for redress under the Acts was not referred to the WRC within twelve months of the latest date of discrimination, the Adjudication Officer, and this Court on appeal, does not have jurisdiction to investigate the claim. The Court therefore affirms the decision of the Adjudication Officer.
20. The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Niamh McGowan
JNF	______________________
01/07/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be in writing and addressed to Ms. Julie Nicholl-Flood