The Circuit Court has refused to extend the deadline for an interim relief application by a former general manager who said he was dismissed after raising concerns about planning at a cemetery.
The application was brought under section 11(2) of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. The applicant asked the court to extend the statutory 21-day period and declare that his employment contract remained in force while his unfair dismissal claim was unresolved. The court refused the extension. The judgment does not grant the requested declaration or decide the underlying unfair dismissal claim.
The applicant’s employment with Kilternan Cemetery Park Limited ended on 3 February 2020. He applied to the court on 14 May 2020. He said he delayed because he was awaiting the result of an application for another job and an internal appeal against his dismissal. He argued that it was fair to extend the deadline until the appeal process ended.
The applicant said he raised concerns about alleged planning irregularities relating to the cemetery’s Island Garden and/or ash burial area at a meeting on 2 December 2019. He also said that a letter dated 13 January, emailed the following day, set out a written protected disclosure. The respondent accepted that a protected disclosure was made on 14 January, but disputed that a disclosure was made at the December meeting.
The respondent said the redundancy followed cost-cutting measures and a board decision in August 2019 that it did not need a full-time general manager. It also alleged that, at the December meeting, the applicant threatened to make a protected disclosure unless he received a substantially enhanced exit package. The applicant disputed the respondent’s account of the discussions about his departure.
The judge said an extension required an objective assessment of what was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Relevant factors included the length of the delay, the applicant’s ability to bring the application, the explanation for the delay, the merits of the case and any prejudice caused.
The court rejected the explanations given for the delay and described the three-and-a-half-month period as excessive in the circumstances. The judge also said the applicant, as general manager, should have taken steps to address the planning concerns while employed if he considered them genuine. The judgment records that he had received legal advice before his dismissal and concludes that he had not established an arguable case for substantial grounds linking the disclosure to a dismissal resulting wholly or mainly from it.
The court therefore refused the extension of time. Its ruling concerned access to interim relief; it did not determine whether the dismissal was unfair or finally resolve the parties’ dispute about the alleged disclosure.