- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Nowak v Intesa San Paolo Vita S.P.A (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff was employed by the Company as a trainee management accountant pursuant to a letter of 30 March 2006 which set out dismissal procedures. The Company issued a letter dated 20 August 2015 stating the Plaintiff's employment was terminated with immediate effect for alleged failures to attend meetings, refusal to engage and insubordination. The Plaintiff lodged complaints with the Workplace Relations Commission on or about 4 September 2015, bringing grievances under the Employment Equality Act 1998, the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2007 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.
The Equality Officer dismissed the 1998 Act claims on 4 October 2016; the Plaintiff appealed to the Labour Court. The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) initially held the Plaintiff could not pursue an unfair dismissal claim (2 February 2017), a decision reversed on appeal to the Circuit Court and affirmed by the High Court subject to referral back to the EAT for further consideration. The EAT heard the unfair dismissal claim and issued a determination on 10 April 2019 concluding it had jurisdiction and that the Plaintiff had been validly dismissed and not unfairly dismissed. The Plaintiff appealed that EAT determination to the Circuit Court (notice of appeal 25 April 2019).
The Circuit Court (judgment dated 14 February 2024) rejected the Plaintiff's preliminary jurisdictional challenge and ordered that the Company was entitled to costs in respect of that preliminary point (order dated 2 May 2024). The Plaintiff appealed both the Circuit Court's jurisdictional decision and the costs order to the High Court. This High Court judgment (delivered by Judge O'Donnell) resolves (a) whether the Circuit Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the EAT and (b) the appeal against the costs order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Circuit Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Plaintiff's appeal from the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
- Whether the Company is entitled to an order for costs made by the Circuit Court in respect of the Plaintiff's unsuccessful preliminary jurisdictional point.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Circuit Court lacks jurisdiction to determine merits if, as the Plaintiff contends, the termination of employment on 20 August 2015 was legally ineffective; the Court must first determine whether an effective dismissal occurred before addressing unfair dismissal merits.
- The Plaintiff alleged the CFO acted ultra vires in issuing the termination, that fair procedures were not followed and that there was breach of natural and constitutional justice.
- On costs, the Plaintiff argued it was premature to award costs on a preliminary issue while substantive proceedings remained outstanding and contended it was unjust to impose full legal costs against a litigant in person.
Respondent's Arguments
- The statutory scheme (Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993, notably s.11) provides for EAT jurisdiction in the first instance and an appeal route to the Circuit Court; by bringing the statutory claim the Plaintiff elected that statutory route and invoked both tribunals' jurisdictions.
- The Plaintiff cannot approbate and reprobate by invoking the statutory unfair dismissal process and then denying that a dismissal occurred; the Circuit Court therefore properly exercises jurisdiction.
- On costs, the Company relied on ss.168–169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and decided authorities summarising that costs ordinarily follow the event and setting out factors for the court to consider when ordering otherwise.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff v. Company [2024] IEHC 262 | Prior procedural history and the High Court's direction returning matters to the EAT. | Used to explain the antecedent litigation and that the Labour Court/EAT interplay had been the subject of earlier orders; formed part of the procedural narrative. |
| Company A v. The Health Authority [2022] 2 I.R. 734 | Summary of general principles relating to costs under ss.168–169 Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 (costs follow the event; matters for discretion). | Cited for the guiding principles the Court should apply when deciding whether to award costs and when to exercise discretion to depart from costs following the event. |
| Appellant v. The Aviation Authority [2020] IECA 277 | Framework for applying ss.168–169: questions whether a party was entirely or partially successful and how costs should be apportioned. | Relied upon to structure the costs inquiry and confirm the questions the Court must address under the 2015 Act and rules of court. |
| Company B v. The Labour Court and ors. [2020] IEHC 342 | Approaches to determining whether a party has been "successful" in proceedings. | Referenced in relation to assessing success for costs purposes and methods of evaluating outcomes (relief claimed, issue-by-issue, arguments). |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began from the statutory scheme: the Unfair Dismissals Acts constitute a self-contained code providing both the tribunal's jurisdiction and the appellate route to the Circuit Court (s.11 of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993). The Plaintiff invoked the EAT's jurisdiction by filing a statutory unfair dismissal claim and then invoked the Circuit Court's statutory appellate jurisdiction by lodging an appeal within the prescribed route. Accordingly the Circuit Court legitimately had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the EAT.
The Court rejected the Plaintiff's contention that the Circuit Court must first determine as a threshold matter whether any dismissal occurred before it can consider merits. That argument was untenable given the Plaintiff had consistently proceeded before the EAT and other bodies on the basis that she had been dismissed. The Plaintiff could not both elect the statutory unfair dismissal remedy and later deny that a dismissal had occurred (approbate and reprobate). The Court accepted the EAT's finding that there was an effective termination: that conclusion rested on established agency principles and on ratification by the CEO, and no basis was shown to displace that finding.
On costs, the Court applied ss.168–169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 and the principles distilled in the cited authorities. The Company was the successful party on the preliminary jurisdictional point; absent reasons to order otherwise, costs follow the event. The Court concluded the appeal against the Circuit Court's costs order should be dismissed but exercised equitable management by staying the Circuit Court costs order pending determination of the substantive appeal before the Circuit Court. The Court indicated a provisional view that the Company should be entitled to costs for resisting the High Court appeals and listed the matter for further argument on precise final orders.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS REFUSED
Holding: The High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's appeals against (a) the Circuit Court's decision that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the EAT and (b) the Circuit Court's order for costs made against the Plaintiff. The High Court, however, stayed the Circuit Court costs order pending determination of the extant substantive appeal before the Circuit Court and indicated the Company is provisionally entitled to its costs for resisting the High Court appeals.
Implications: Direct effects are that the Circuit Court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the EAT is affirmed and the Plaintiff's challenge to that jurisdiction fails; the Company is the successful party on the jurisdictional preliminary point and entitled to costs unless the stay and further directions are varied following argument. No novel legal principle was established; the decision applies the statutory appellate scheme and established costs principles to the facts presented.
Alert