EDA2610

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00037260 (CA-00047096-007)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 77 (12), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 9 December 2024.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 April 2026.

The following is the Determination of the Court.

DETERMINATION:

This is an appeal by Ionela-Adina Iacobuta against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer made under the Employment Equality Act, 1998 to 2015 (“the Acts”) in a complaint against Kinlay Abbey Limited.

1. Background

For ease, the parties are referred to in the same way as at first instance. Hence, Ionela-Adina Iacobuta is referred to as “the Appellant” and Kinlay Abbey Limited as “the Respondent”.

The Adjudication Officer’s decision is dated 16 October 2024. A Notice of Appeal was received by the Labour Court on 4 December 2024, which was outside of the 42-day period for bringing an appeal provided for in section 44(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (‘the 2015 Act’). The Appellant indicated on the appeal form that she intended to apply for an extension of time for late lodgement of her appeal due to “exceptional circumstances”. By letter dated 9 December 2024, the Appellant was requested to provide a written submission to the Court addressing her complaint and to include the grounds for such an extension of the statutory timeline in the submission.

A hearing of the Court was held on 10 April 2026. The Appellant was assisted with a Romanian language interpreter at the hearing. The Court heard submissions from both parties, and the Appellant gave evidence under oath.

At the outset of the hearing the Respondent raised a second preliminary matter addressing the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It submitted that the Appellant was never employed or ever worked for the Respondent.

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”.

The Court decided with the agreement of the parties that it would hear and decide the preliminary matters in the first instance. It advised the parties if it decided that the complaint was lodged to the WRC within time, a further hearing would be scheduled to consider the substantive appeal. If the Court decided that the complaint was lodged outside the time limits set down in the Act, the appeal would be out of time and statute barred.

2. Submission of the Appellant

The Appellant was employed by another entity until 4 September 2020 when her employment transferred to the employment of the Respondent. The Appellant never consented to the transfer of her employment to the Respondent and did not sign a contract of employment. She objected to the transfer and her employment with the Respondent ceased in and around the 29 September 2020.  The Appellant lodged her complaint under the Act to the WRC on 29 October 2021.

The Appellant seeks an extension of time for the late lodgement of her appeal of the Adjudication Officer’s decision to the Labour Court due to “exceptional circumstances”. The Appellant was unable to submit her appeal on time due to health matters.  She was unwell at the time and her medical condition relating to anxiety prevented her from lodging the appeal in time.  She was unaware that she needs to provide any evidence to support her submission.

3. Summary Position of the Respondent

The Appellant was never employed or ever worked for the Respondent.

Notwithstanding that fact, the appeal was lodged beyond the 42 days for which an appeal is allowed.

The Labour Court notified the Respondent on the 9 December 2024 that the Appellant had been requested to provide the Labour Court with a written submission of her case, and to include exceptional grounds for an extension of time in the submission. The Appellant failed to advance any reason which may allow for an extension of time, much less any legal ground for appeal. The height of the appeal in her written submission is grounded on the simple assertion that she “was not satisfied how is (sic) was judged”.

At the Court hearing the Appellant relies on her medical status to support her contention that she was prevented from lodging her appeal within time. No evidence is provided to support this contention. The reasons outlined by the Appellant do not fall within the term “exceptional circumstances”. 

The burden of proof in establishing the existence of exceptional circumstances which prevented the making of an appeal in time rests with the Appellant. To discharge that burden, she must present clear and cogent evidence to support the contention that “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of s. 44(4) of the Act of 2015 existed and that those circumstances prevented the lodgement of the appeal within time. No submission has been made that exceptional circumstance existed and there is no submission before the Court that any such circumstances prevented the Appellant from making the within appeal prior to that date.

The Respondent relies on the established precedents in Flutter Entertainment PLC v Samual Long, UD2441, Mc Loughlin and Murray [2022 IEHC 537], Joyce Fitzsimons-Markey v Gaelscoil Thulach na nOg [2004] ELR 110, and Byrne v PJ Quigley Limited [1995] ELR 205.

4. Relevant Law

Sections 44 (2) (3) and (4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 Act provide as follows:

(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.

5. Deliberations

The first matter for decision by the Court is whether “exceptional circumstances” existed during the period for the giving of notice of an appeal to the Court that prevented the lodging of that appeal by the due date.

In Joyce Fitzsimons-Markey v Gaelscoil Thulach na nOg [2004] ELR 110 the Labour Court gave extensive consideration to the meaning of the expression "exceptional circumstances". In that case the Court stated as follows:

“The question for determination in this case is whether the applicant was prevented by exceptional circumstances from bringing her claim within the time limit prescribed by Section 77(6) of the Act.  That is pre-eminently a question of fact and degree. Each case must be decided on its own circumstances and the improbability of any two cases falling under the same set of circumstances makes it unlikely that the decision in any one case can be more than a rough guide to the decision in another.”

The Court went on to state:-

“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 burden of proof in establishing the existence of “exceptional circumstances” rests with the Appellant. In this case, the Appellant contends that her medical condition prevented her from lodging the appeal in time. No evidence about the Appellant’s medical status during the period in question was submitted to the Court to support her contention that health issues prevented her from lodging an appeal to the Court within the 42-day timeframe set down in the Act.   

In Dr Frank Whelton t/a Whelton Dental and Elaine Corkery TUD247, which considered a failure to present a complaint in time due to “reasonable cause”, the Labour Court held that illness without evidence to show that it rendered the Complainant in that case incapable of submitting her complaint form and/or ignorance of the law, cannot excuse the lodging of complaints outside of the statutory time limits that apply.

The Court recognises that a lay litigant may be unfamiliar with the law, however, the information provided to parties when they receive decisions from the Workplace Relations Commission make clear to them, in a manner that requires no legal training, that there is a limit of 42 days within which to appeal. While the reasons submitted by the Appellant in this case may explain the delay, the Court finds that they do not provide afford a justifiable excuse for the delay. Furthermore, this Court has regularly found that ignorance of the law cannot excuse the lodging of complaints outside the statutory time limits that apply.

In all the circumstances, the Court is of the view that a justifiable basis upon which an extension of time could be granted has not been put forward in this case.  The Appellant does not meet the established threshold whereby the statutory timeframe within which she is permitted to appeal the Adjudication Officer’s decision can be enlarged due to “exceptional circumstances”.

The Labour Court is a creature of statute, and its powers and duties are derived solely from statute. The Court cannot assume a jurisdiction which is not conferred to it. A failure on the part of an Appellant to lodge an appeal on time deprives this Court of jurisdiction to hear the claim. As a result, the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

In light of that fact, it is not necessary for the Court to consider the other preliminary matters raised.

6. Finding

The Court finds that the existence of “exceptional circumstances” has not been established by the Applicant to allow the extension of the statutory timeframe for giving a notice of appeal to the Court. 

It follows that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the substantive appeal.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AR	______________________
20/04/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be in writing and addressed to Mr Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.