Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Emer  Egan

 Shonelly Limited and Slieve Bloom Ltd trading as Tullamore Veterinary Clinic

Representatives

In person

Boyd HR

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00074928-001

28/08/2025

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a veterinary nurse from 1st June 2005 until 31st May 2025. The complaint relates to the complainant’s redundancy entitlements.

Respondent entity

The parties clarified at the hearing that the complainant was employed by a partnership named Shonelly Limited and Slieve Bloom Limited trading as Tullamore Veterinary Clinic. It was also clarified by both parties that the entity that employed the complainant was dissolved on 31st May 2025.

Continued employment

The complainant ceased her employment with the partnership on 31st May 2025 when it was dissolved. She immediately transferred her employment to one of the partners in a new legal entity and remains employed by that partner in the new entity to date.

The complainant is seeking her redundancy entitlements from the respondent. The partner who became her employer is willing to discharge 50% of the complainant’s redundancy entitlements, whereas the other partner is not.

Both partners who employed the complainant in the dissolved entity attended the adjudication hearing on 12th May 2026. One of the partners is willing to discharge the complainant’s redundancy entitlements whereas the other is not. The partner who is in dispute in relation to the redundancy payment contends that the complainant’s employment which continued immediately with the new entity constitutes a transfer within the meaning of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (TUPE) and that in those circumstances a redundancy situation did not arise and the complaint should fail.

The complaint is submitted under the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. Notwithstanding the argument relating to the complainant’s continued employment and the applicability of the TUPE regulations, the adjudication of this complaint primarily requires a decision in respect of the complainant’s entitlements to a redundancy payment in circumstances where the legal entity that employed her was dissolved on 31st May 2025.

The Adjudication Services of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and the Labour Court have repeatedly held that where a respondent entity is dissolved, there is no jurisdiction to hear a complaint.

The Labour Court in Michael Gannon Landscaping Limited v Janis Golubevs (MWD 126) also held as follows:

“The Court was informed that the respondent company has been dissolved. Consequently, the respondent company in this case has ceased to have any legal existence and its assets (if any) have been vested in the Minister for Finance by virtue of Section 28 of the State Property Act, 1954. In the absence of any statutory provision giving a dissolved company a legal status for the purpose of proceedings under the Act, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The Court determines accordingly.”

In the current circumstances, the complainant’s employer and the named respondent to this complaint is dissolved. On that basis and as there is no longer a legal entity in existence, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

For the reasons stated above, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Redundancy entitlement, entity dissolved