The High Court has rejected Agnieszka Nowak's challenge to the Circuit Court's jurisdiction to hear her appeal in a long-running unfair dismissal dispute with Intesa San Paolo Vita S.P.A.
Mr Justice Barry O'Donnell also upheld a Circuit Court costs order against Ms Nowak. However, he directed that the costs order should be stayed until her substantive appeal from the Employment Appeals Tribunal is determined.
Ms Nowak worked as a trainee management accountant with the company. Her employment was terminated with immediate effect by letter dated 20 August 2015. The company cited failures to attend disciplinary and HR meetings, refusal to engage and insubordination.
Ms Nowak subsequently pursued equality and unfair dismissal complaints. After several procedural disputes, the Employment Appeals Tribunal heard her unfair dismissal case in 2019.
During that hearing she raised a new argument that her employment had never been legally terminated because the company's chief financial officer, who signed the dismissal letter, was not a director and therefore lacked authority to dismiss her.
The tribunal rejected that argument. It found that the termination was clear and effective and that the chief financial officer had authority, whether actual or implied. It also found that the chief executive later ratified the dismissal. The tribunal ultimately held that Ms Nowak had not been unfairly dismissed.
Ms Nowak appealed to the Circuit Court but then argued that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal appeal unless it first decided whether any lawful dismissal had occurred.
The High Court rejected that position. Mr Justice O'Donnell held that Ms Nowak had herself invoked the statutory unfair dismissal process before the tribunal and then appealed its determination to the Circuit Court under the legislation governing such appeals. She could not invoke that process and simultaneously deny its jurisdiction.
The ruling does not decide whether the dismissal itself was unfair. That substantive issue remains for determination by the Circuit Court.