Judgment: 2022-06-01 · Court archive

High Court dismisses appeals over employment and pension complaints

The court found no error of law in two Labour Court determinations concerning a former teacher’s discrimination and pension claims.

High Court · [2022] IEHC 362

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Deirdre Morgan (Appellant)
  • The Labour Court (Respondent)
  • Kildare and Wicklow Education and Training Board
  • Cian Ferriter (Judge)
What

The court found no error of law in two Labour Court determinations concerning a former teacher’s discrimination and pension claims.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 9 February 2021

    In a judgment delivered on 1 June 2022, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter found that Morgan had not shown an error of law in either determination. The appeals were on points of law from decisions the Labour Court made on 9 February 2021, which had dismissed appeals from a Workplace Relations Commission adjudication officer’s decision.

  • 15 April 2019

    One appeal concerned a complaint under the Employment Equality Act. The Labour Court had considered whether Morgan had identified an instance of discrimination within the relevant period, which ran from 16 November 2018 to 15 April 2019. It found she had not made out a prima facie case and did not decide whether she had legal standing to bring the complaint. The High Court said the hearing transcript showed that the parties had agreed the Labour Court would address preliminary issues, including whether discrimination occurred within the relevant period. It found no error of law.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

In a judgment delivered on 1 June 2022, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter found that Morgan had not shown an error of law in either determination. The appeals were on points of law from decisions the Labour Court made on 9 February 2021, which had dismissed appeals from a Workplace Relations Commission adjudication officer’s decision.

The High Court has dismissed two appeals by Deirdre Morgan against Labour Court determinations concerning employment discrimination and pension complaints against Kildare and Wicklow Education and Training Board (KWETB).

In a judgment delivered on 1 June 2022, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter found that Morgan had not shown an error of law in either determination. The appeals were on points of law from decisions the Labour Court made on 9 February 2021, which had dismissed appeals from a Workplace Relations Commission adjudication officer’s decision.

One appeal concerned a complaint under the Employment Equality Act. The Labour Court had considered whether Morgan had identified an instance of discrimination within the relevant period, which ran from 16 November 2018 to 15 April 2019. It found she had not made out a prima facie case and did not decide whether she had legal standing to bring the complaint. The High Court said the hearing transcript showed that the parties had agreed the Labour Court would address preliminary issues, including whether discrimination occurred within the relevant period. It found no error of law.

The second appeal concerned a complaint under the Pensions Act. The Labour Court had found that Morgan received the ill-health retirement pension for which she applied and had not identified a breach of the Act. Her complaint concerned access to an injury gratuity. The High Court found the Labour Court’s conclusion—that she did not meet the requirements for that gratuity—was unimpeachable as a matter of law.

Morgan also argued that she had not been allowed to make submissions at the remote Labour Court hearing. Justice Ferriter said the hearing transcript showed that she had a fair opportunity to present her submissions. He noted that KWETB’s affidavit evidence about the hearing was not challenged.

The High Court dismissed both appeals. It did not make a new determination of the underlying employment complaint; on the employment appeal, it addressed whether the Labour Court had erred in law in its preliminary determination.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review