The High Court has proposed allowing Debenhams Retail Ireland Limited’s appeal against a Labour Court decision that awarded a former employee four weeks’ pay for a breach of collective redundancy consultation rules.
In a judgment delivered electronically on 7 March 2025, Mr Justice Barr upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the employer’s duty to begin consultations arose on 9 April 2020, after its UK parent withdrew funding and the company’s board resolved it could not continue trading. But the judge ruled that consultation began on 14 April, when information about the proposed redundancies was sent to the employee’s union representative, rather than at the first meeting on 17 April.
The case is an appeal on a point of law by Debenhams Retail Ireland Limited, which is in liquidation, against a Labour Court decision dated 10 April 2024. That decision upheld an adjudication officer’s finding that the company breached section 9 of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 and awarded the respondent, Jane Crowe, €1,140, equal to four weeks’ pay. The judgment says the case was a test case among about 792 similar cases.
The parent company told the Irish subsidiary on the evening of 8 April 2020 that it would provide no further financial support. The following morning, the Irish company’s board resolved it could not continue as a going concern and addressed collective redundancy requirements. Provisional liquidators were appointed on 16 April. The first meeting between them, the board and union representatives took place the next day.
The Labour Court had found that consultation started on 17 April and should have begun on 9 April, when redundancies became a probability. Mr Justice Barr said the finding about the 9 April trigger was supported by evidence and could not be set aside on a point-of-law appeal. He also held that supplying the required redundancy information under section 10 was an integral part of consultation. The 14 April letter gave the union representative the required information, including that all employee roles were proposed for redundancy.
The judge set aside the Labour Court’s finding that the delay narrowed available options, saying there was no evidence before it that any options had been lost. He also ruled that compensation was not justified: there was no evidence that the respondent suffered financial loss or additional distress, and compensation had to relate to some form of loss or injury. The judgment said that, after the funding withdrawal, the company was hopelessly insolvent and there was nothing the board could have done to help employees.
The court proposed allowing the appeal against the Labour Court decision. It had not yet made its final order: the parties were invited to provide written submissions on the order and costs within two weeks, and the matter was listed for mention on 26 March 2025.