The Court of Appeal has ruled that it has no jurisdiction to hear Pascal Hosford’s appeal from a High Court decision concerning his protected disclosure complaint against the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection.
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Faherty on 15 December 2021, dealt only with a preliminary objection by the Department. The court did not consider the substance of Mr Hosford’s appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of his challenge to a Labour Court determination.
Mr Hosford, a Higher Executive Officer and manager in the Department’s Facilities Management Unit, had made protected disclosures to the Department. After workplace disciplinary procedures in 2017, he received a final written warning. His internal appeal and a subsequent appeal to an external appeals officer were unsuccessful.
He then complained to the Workplace Relations Commission that the disciplinary action was penalisation for making protected disclosures, contrary to section 12 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. An adjudication officer rejected the complaint. The Labour Court dismissed his appeal in March 2019, and the High Court dismissed his appeal on a point of law in February 2020.
The Department argued that section 46 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides for an appeal from the Labour Court to the High Court on a point of law, with the High Court’s decision “final and conclusive”. It said those words exclude a further appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Mr Hosford accepted that the provision was clear and unambiguous, but argued that the restriction breached rights under the EU Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court rejected those arguments. It found that the complaint arose under Irish legislation that did not implement EU law, so the Charter did not apply. It also noted that there is no general right to an appeal under the Convention and that Mr Hosford had received hearings before the adjudication officer and Labour Court, followed by a High Court appeal on a point of law.
The Court upheld the Department’s objection and said it had no jurisdiction to hear or determine Mr Hosford’s appeal. It did not decide the underlying protected disclosure claim. The court noted that an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court may be pursued, subject to that court’s criteria.
On costs, the Court proposed that the Department recover the costs of the preliminary issue. Either party could apply for a different order within 21 days; absent an application within 14 days, the proposed order would become operative.