The High Court dismissed Sabina Murphy’s judicial review challenge to an appeal concerning whether her work as a bus tour guide was insurable employment. The court found that the statutory appeal had been validly made by Córas Iompair Éireann (CIE), despite Ms Murphy’s argument that it had been brought by a separate New York company.
The underlying dispute is whether Ms Murphy worked under a contract of service or was self-employed. A deciding officer ruled in March 2019 that her employment by “CIE Tours” was insurable under the Social Welfare Acts at PRSI Class A. CIE appealed that decision in a letter dated 25 March 2019, using the name “CIE Tours International”.
Ms Murphy objected that the appeal was invalid because, she said, it had been brought in the name of CIE Tours International Inc, a company registered in New York and separate from her employer. CIE said its Irish tour operations were managed within its own organisation and that the appeal was made by the appropriate appellant.
In a letter dated 3 July 2019, the appeals officer said they were “quite satisfied that a valid appeal has been submitted by CIE”. The court found that this was a definitive decision on the objection, capable of judicial review. It rejected the respondents’ argument that the application was premature.
The court also found that the application was filed outside the three-month time limit, which began on 3 July 2019. However, it granted a one-month extension. The court cited confusion about available remedies, the respondents’ position that the case was premature, and Ms Murphy’s recovery from surgery. It found that the short delay had not caused the other parties prejudice.
On the merits, the court said the documents showed that “CIE” and “CIE International Tours” had been used interchangeably, and that the deciding officer’s decision identified CIE’s tax number. It concluded that the appeal could only be understood as having been made by CIE, and rejected the claim that the New York company was the appellant.
The court dismissed the judicial review proceedings. The case was listed for 15 October 2021 for final orders and consideration of costs, with written submissions on costs to be filed in advance. The judgment does not record a final order on costs.