FTD266

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00056935 (CA-00069217-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Decision to the Labour Court.  A Labour Court hearing took place on 02 July 2026.           

The following is the Court's Decision.

DECISION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal by Mr Niall Darby (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00056935, dated 8 July 2025) under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-term Work) Act 2003 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 21 August 2025. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 2 July 2026.

Preliminary Issue

The decision from which the Complainant appeals is dated 8 July 2025. The Complainant emailed the Court on 21 August 2025 and stated as follows:

“Dear Registrar,

Please find attached my completed appeal package in relation to Case Reference ADJ-00056935, which includes:

• Cover letter,
• Completed Labour Court Appeal Form (EAT1), and
• My detailed grounds for appeal.

I kindly request that you confirm receipt of this appeal and ensure that the attached documentation is added to the case file for processing.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Kind regards,

Niall Darby

[Home address]

[Email address]

[Telephone number]”

Attached to that email of 21 August 2025 was a two-page document bearing the date of 20 August 2025 and titled “Re: Appeal of WRC Decision – Case Ref: ADJ-00056935”. There followed an introductory paragraph in similar terms to what has been reproduced above from the Complainant’s email. This in turn was followed by what purported to be ‘Labour Court – EAT1 Appeal Form’.

The Court’s records show that an officer of the Court replied to the Complainant on 21 August 2025 by email to acknowledge receipt of his appeal notification.

The Law

Section 44(2) -(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provide:

“(2) An appeal under this section shall be initiated by the party concerned giving a notice in writing to the Labour Court containing such particulars as are determined by the Labour Court in accordance with rules under subsection (5) of section 20 of the Act of 1946 and stating that the party concerned is appealing the decision to which it relates.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), a notice under subsection (2) shall be given to the Labour Court not later than 42 days from the date of the decision concerned.

(4) The Labour Court may direct that a notice under subsection (2) may be given to it after the expiration of the period specified in subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the notice was not so given before such expiration due to the existence of exceptional circumstances.”

Discussion and Decision

On the face of it, the Complainant’s appeal – albeit in a form not known to the Court – was received 45 days from the date of the Adjudication Officer’s decision i.e. three days outside of the forty-two-day time limit provided for in section 41(3) of the Act of 2015. At the commencement of the within hearing, the Complainant was advised of this and invited to make submissions, if he wished to do so, in support of an application to extend time. The Complainant availed himself of that opportunity. He told the Court that he had been unaware prior to the commencement of the within hearing that he was required to make an application to extend time and had he been informed of the need to do so he would have done so in advance of the hearing; he further submitted that he had informed the Workplace Relations Commission of his intention to appeal from ADJ-00056935 and had done so very shortly after the decision had been received by him; finally, he stated that he is not a lawyer and unable to afford legal representation and cannot therefore be expected for example to know what time limits apply to bringing appeals or what the difference is between the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court.

In cases where an appellant is late on referring an appeal from a decision of an Adjudication Officer of the Workplace Relations Commission to the Labour Court, Section 44(4) very clearly places the burden on the appellant to establish that his or her delay in referring the appeal was “due to the existence of exceptional circumstances”.

The meaning to be given to the words ‘exceptional circumstances’ was considered by this Court when construing identical words in the Employment Equality Act 1998 (prior to its amendment in 2004) in Fitzsimons-Markey v Gaelscoil Thulach na nÓg [2004] E.L.R. 110). The Court, in its Determination in that case, said that to be exceptional, “a circumstance need not be unique or unprecedented or very rare; but it cannot be one which is regular or routinely or normally encountered”.

The Court in Fitzsimons-Markey outlined the correct approach that should be taken to determine, whether in any particular case, the circumstances relied on by an appellant to extend time constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’:

“The Court must first consider if the circumstances relied upon by the applicant can be regarded as exceptional. If it answers that question in the affirmative the Court must then go on to consider if those circumstances operated so as to prevent the applicant from lodging her claim in time.

The term exceptional is an ordinary familiar English adjective and not a term of art. It describes a circumstance which is such as to form an exception, which is out of the ordinary course or unusual or special or uncommon. To be exceptional a circumstance need not be unique or unprecedented or very rare; but it cannot be one which is regular or routinely or normally encountered (see R v Kelly [1999] 2 All ER 13 at 20 per Lord Bingham CJ.)”

The Court has applied the same approach when construing the words ‘exceptional circumstances’ as they are used in section 44(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. See, for example, Luiz v Zoric (TED1712), Yeria Limited v Adebbite (MND176) and Gumaraes Hanlon v Cavtat Taverns 3 T/A Urban Eats (EDA20/2023)

The Court – having regard to its established jurisprudence in relation to the meaning to be given to the words ‘exceptional circumstances’ in section 44(4) of the Workplace Relations Act – finds that the explanation given by the Complainant is insufficient to permit the Court to extend time for bringing the within appeal. The Court, therefore, declines jurisdiction to hear the Complainant’s substantive appeal. The decision of the Adjudication Officer, accordingly, stands.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
AR	______________________
06/07/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mr Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.