RPD2513

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00037832 (CA-00049257-002).

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 28 August 2024

in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2014.

A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 28 August 2025.

The following is the Decision of the Court:

DECISION:

Background to the Appeals

This is an appeal on behalf of Oasis Global Management Company (Ireland) Limited (‘the Respondent’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00037832/CA-00049257-002, dated 18 July 2024) under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (‘the Act’). There had been no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the first instance hearing. Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 28 August 2024. The Court heard the appeal in a virtual courtroom on 28 August 2025.

The Factual Matrix

Mr Muhammed Nurulain Boda (‘the Complainant’) is an Irish citizen of Indian extraction. He was employed by the Respondent from 21 March 2013 as a financial accountant. His employment terminated in early 2022. The date of termination and the circumstances in which it occurred are disputed. It is common case that the Complainant was also a director of the Respondent from 16 May 2019 until he resigned from that role by email dated 14 January 2022.

The Respondent was authorised by the Central Bank of Ireland to act as a UCITS Management Company and was appointed manager of the Oasis Cresent Global Investment Fund (Ireland) Plc (‘the Irish Fund’). A related company, Oasis Cresent Wealth (UK) Limited (‘OCWUK’) is a UK-incorporated company authorised by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority to provide investment advice in respect of the products of the Irish Fund. In late 2019, a decision was taken to re-domicile the Irish Fund to the UK by way of a UCITS Merger with a mirror UK fund; to seek authorisation for OCWUK to act as a UK UCITS Management Company; and to appoint OCWUK as the manager and authorised corporate director of the UK Fund and thereafter to de-authorise the Respondent and the Irish Fund and to proceed to de-register all Irish-based entities. As of the date of hearing, however, the status of Respondent company continued to be listed as ‘normal’ on the Companies Registration Office’s database.

It is common case that the Complainant was offered and accepted employment with OCWUK although the salary he would receive and the date of his expected relocation to the UK had not been agreed prior to the cessation of his employment with the Respondent. The Parties had agreed that all other material terms of the Complainant’s contract would remain in place and that his service with the Respondent and OCWUK would be deemed continuous. The Complainant appear to have had a change of heart about relocation from Ireland in late 2021 and began to seek out alternative employment opportunities in Ireland. He received and accepted an offer of employment with a well-known investment bank on 14 January 2022 on which date he wrote an email with the following subject line to his employer: “Resignation letter – OGMCI Director and last day employment confirmation”.

The body of the email reads as follows:

“RE: Notice of my last day at Oasis Global Management Company (Ireland) Limited

Thank you so much to the Executive Directors for giving me an opportunity to work with Oasis Global Management Company (Ireland) Limited.

After careful consideration and subsequent discussion with my family, I regret to inform that I do not wish to accept employment offer with Oasis Crescent Wealth (UK) Limited.

I wish to remind that my employment contract is with Oasis Global Management Company (Ireland) Limited which has formally been closed in Ireland and thus wound up. Also, an application for revocation of authorisation and liquidation has been filed with the Central Bank of Ireland which ultimately ceased my employment relationship with this company. As a professional courtesy, I will render one month of my services to help during this transition which will include effective 14 February 2022. Further to a foregoing, I have been training the team since last six months and they have performed all the daily tasks during my absence in November 2021.

As company has formally wound up, I would be grateful if the statutory redundancy related entitlement can be paid. Lastly, I would appreciate if I can be issued with the reference letter for my services with the company.

In addition, I haven’t received my full bonus payment which I was entitled to during 2021. The company’s policy was to pay this amount (Euro 4,000) over three years period, however, since the company has already closed down, I wish to confirm if my remaining employment-related entitlements i.e. bonus and profit share payment will be paid.

Please find the attached resignation letter as well.

Kind regards,

Nurulain”

On receipt of the Complainant’s email, management arranged for his immediate disconnection from the Respondent’s IT systems for ‘security reasons’ and removed him from payroll. This was confirmed to the Complainant in an email from the HR Department on 16 January 2022. The Complainant wrote on numerous occasions thereafter seeking his ‘redundancy entitlements’. He eventually received a very lengthy reply from the Respondent on 28 April 2022 reciting the history of the Complainant’s employment with it, the engagement that had taken place between the Parties in relation to the Complainant’s relocation to the UK and denying that he had any entitlement in the circumstance to a redundancy payment. The Complainant took up his offer of employment with the investment bank on 3 May 2022.

The Complainant’s Submission and Evidence

The Complainant told the Court that by his email of 14 January 2022 he resigned his directorship of the Respondent but not his employment although he had been seeking alternative employment for some time by that stage as he did not want to move to the UK and he believed that there was not going to be any work available for him in Ireland with the Respondent going forward.

Under cross-examination, the Complainant said that he had moved to South Africa from India in 2010 after graduating from college. He secured his first employment with a company connected to the Respondent which trained him and he was subsequently earmarked to work with the Respondent in Ireland where he started in 2013. He also said that he was appointed as Director of the Respondent in 2019 and was the most senior employee (of four) in the Respondent at the material time.

The Complainant agreed with Counsel for the Respondent that he had received and accepted an offer of employment with a third-party employer in Ireland on 14 January 2022. He also agreed that he was performing actual work for the Respondent on 13 January 2022 and was being remunerated for it. Asked why he then accepted a job elsewhere on the 14th, he said that he had done so because he did not want to work in the UK. Counsel put it to him that he was being disingenuous, therefore, in claiming that his email of 14 January 2022 was not a resignation from his employment. Counsel asked why he was offering to work for a further month if he hadn’t intended to resign.

The Respondent’s Submission

The Respondent submits that no redundancy situation arose from the de-authorisation by the Central Bank of Ireland as the Respondent continued to provide services to OCWUK and the Complainant worked in that capacity up until 13 January 2022. The Respondent also submits that the Complainant’s email of 14 January 2022 is clearly a resignation of his directorship and from his employment whereby he offered to work a notice period of one month. This, according to the Respondent’s representative, is obviously inconsistent with the Complainant’s assertion that there was no work available for him going forward. Counsel submitted that the Complainant would not have tendered his resignation on 14 January 2022 ‘but for’ the offer of alternative employment he had received and accepted on that date and that his request for a redundancy payment is merely opportunistic. Finally, it was submitted that if the Complainant had been honest with the Respondent about his change of heart about moving to the UK arrangements could have been agreed to facilitate his continued employment in Ireland.

Discussion and Decision

The Court finds that the Complainant’s email of 14 January 2022 was undoubtedly a resignation from both his directorship of, and employment with, the Respondent. It is very apparent from the contents of that email that the Complainant had conflated two separate processes: the de-authorisation by the Central Bank and the winding up of the Respondent as a corporate entity. The Respondent had not been wound up on 14 January 2022 as the Complainant claimed and nor has it been wound up since.

Having carefully considered the written and oral submissions before it, the Court finds that the Complainant has not established that his position was redundant when he chose to resign his employment and accept employment elsewhere on 14 January 2022. In his own words, he resigned because he had changed his mind about transferring his employment to OCWUK and to the UK. At no stage did he explore with the Respondent the possibility of continuing to work on the same basis as he had been on 13 January 2022 and doing so in Ireland.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court upholds the Respondent’s appeal and sets aside the decision of the Adjudication Officer.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
TH	______________________
10 September 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

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