The Court of Appeal has refused Olumide Smith’s application to extend the time for an appeal against a High Court order that refused his request for salary information from Cisco Systems Internetworking (Ireland) Limited.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 17 October 2022, Allen J., with Collins and Binchy JJ. agreeing, held that Smith had not shown he formed an intention to appeal within the permitted time. The court also concluded that there was no arguable ground for appealing the discovery ruling. It refused the extension; the application did not determine Smith’s separate appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of his substantive employment equality appeal.
Smith worked for Cisco from January 2008 until his employment ended in July 2013. He complained that he had faced race discrimination in remuneration and promotion and had been dismissed on racial grounds. An adjudication officer rejected the complaint in February 2016. The Labour Court later dismissed his appeal and affirmed that decision. It found no race discrimination. On pay, Cisco submitted evidence about Smith’s remuneration and that of three colleagues it accepted were comparable; the Labour Court found Smith’s remuneration exceeded theirs. Cisco did not provide salary evidence for other employees Smith had identified as comparators.
Smith appealed the Labour Court determination to the High Court on a point of law. In a separate discovery motion, he sought salary ranges for five Cisco employment grades and salary information for 15 employees. The High Court refused that motion in January 2019. Noonan J. considered the requested information factual and not relevant to a point-of-law appeal, where new evidence could not be considered. The judge did not decide at that hearing whether Smith’s substantive motion identified a point of law.
The substantive appeal was later dismissed by Meenan J. in November 2020, who concluded that Smith’s motion identified no point of law that justified upholding it. That decision was under a separate appeal listed for hearing on 14 November 2022, according to the Court of Appeal judgment.
Smith said that concurrent family law proceedings and other litigation had exhausted his resources and capacity, causing the delay. Allen J. noted there was no evidence Smith had decided to appeal the discovery order within time, and said the account of being overwhelmed was difficult to reconcile with his progress of other proceedings and motions during the same period. The court held that the discovery request was directed to gathering facts for an appeal limited to legal issues arising from the Labour Court evidence. It found the High Court judge was right to refuse it and rejected Smith’s application to appeal out of time.