The Court of Appeal has dismissed Pascal Hosford’s claim against the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, ruling that he could not pursue a tort action after bringing complaints about the same matters to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
In a judgment delivered on 4 December 2024, Ms Justice Hyland said section 13(2) of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 required a person to choose between a tort claim and seeking redress through the WRC or under unfair-dismissal legislation. That choice was binding even when the WRC did not examine the substance of the complaint.
The case concerned emails sent to Mr Hosford in July and August 2019 and his resignation on 1 November 2019. He alleged the emails were penalisation linked to protected disclosures and that his resignation amounted to constructive dismissal. These were allegations, not findings on their merits in this appeal.
Mr Hosford complained to the WRC in August 2020. In July 2021, an adjudication officer found the complaints were outside the statutory time limits and that no reasonable cause had been established to extend the time. Mr Hosford did not appeal that decision to the Labour Court. He later brought the High Court proceedings, seeking declarations and damages under the Act’s tort provision.
The High Court had declined to dismiss this set of proceedings, considering the effect of a time-barred WRC complaint a novel and complex issue unsuitable for resolution on a strike-out motion. The Minister appealed that decision. The Court of Appeal agreed the issue was novel but held that the statutory wording was clear and the case could be decided at this stage.
The appeal court concluded that Mr Hosford had made complaints to the WRC against the same Minister about the same matters as his tort action. It said the statutory bar applied once he chose and pursued the WRC route; it did not depend on a substantive decision about whether the complaints were well founded. The court dismissed the proceedings as bound to fail under Order 19, Rule 28.
The ruling addressed only the proceedings numbered 2022/2115P. It did not decide the merits of the alleged penalisation or constructive dismissal. The Minister was presumptively entitled to appeal costs; Mr Hosford was given 14 days to make a written submission seeking a different costs order, with a further 14 days for the Minister to respond.