The High Court has dismissed Catherine McLoughlin’s appeal on a point of law against a Labour Court decision refusing to extend the time for her unfair dismissal appeal. Mr Justice Heslin found that the Labour Court had applied the law correctly and that no error justified disturbing its decision. The High Court did not reconsider the merits of the unfair dismissal claim.
McLoughlin’s appeal to the Labour Court concerned a Workplace Relations Commission adjudication officer’s November 2019 decision that her dismissal was by reason of redundancy and that her unfair dismissal claim failed. The deadline to appeal was 30 December 2019. Her solicitor sent the appeal by registered post from Boyle, Co Mayo, on 20 December, but the Labour Court received it on 2 January 2020.
She sought an extension under section 44(4) of the Workplace Relations Commission Act 2015, arguing that Labour Court offices were closed on working days over the Christmas period and that registered post could not be delivered. An Post confirmed four unsuccessful delivery attempts because the business was closed, but its email did not give the dates. The High Court judgment records that no evidence was put before the Labour Court establishing the office’s opening arrangements, how post could be signed for, or the dates of the unsuccessful attempts. The judge also noted that a second An Post email with delivery dates was reportedly received shortly before the Labour Court hearing but was not submitted there.
The Labour Court refused an adjournment to obtain further evidence, found that exceptional circumstances had not been established, and treated the appeal as statute-barred. It affirmed the adjudication officer’s decision. On appeal, McLoughlin argued that the Labour Court applied the wrong test and denied her a fair opportunity to present evidence. Mr Justice Heslin held that she had advance notice of the preliminary hearing and an opportunity to submit evidence and arguments. He found no breach of fair procedures in refusing the adjournment.
The High Court said its role was limited to deciding whether the Labour Court made an error of law; it was not a rehearing. The judge found that the Labour Court had used the approach in an earlier Labour Court decision and had assessed the evidence before it. He dismissed the motion. The respondent had been wholly successful; the judge’s preliminary view was that the usual rule that costs follow the event applied. The parties were invited to agree costs or file short submissions if they could not.