Smith v Iquate Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,MacMenamin J.,O'Malley J.
• Judgment Date: 02 November 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IESCDET 109
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 02 November 2017

[2017] IESCDET 109

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

Clarke C.J.

MacMenamin J.

O'Malley J.

IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT (INFORMATION) ACT 1994

BETWEEN

OLUMIDE SMITH

APPLICANT

AND

IQUATE LIMITED

RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

Result: The Court does not grant leave to appeal.

Reasons Given:

Jurisdiction

1 This application relates to two orders made by the High Court (Noonan J.) on the 3rd March 2017. In 2016/258 MCA Noonan J. dismissed the applicant's appeal from a decision of the Employment Appeals Tribunal, and in 2016/285 MCA he dismissed the applicant's appeal from a decision of the Labour Court. Both sets of proceedings arose from the employment of the applicant with the respondent.

2 As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the 33rd Amendment, it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave, that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed either involves a matter of general public importance or that it is otherwise in the interest of justice that there should be an appeal to this Court.

3 The Court considers it desirable to point out that a determination of the Court on an application for leave, while it is final and conclusive so far as the parties are concerned, is a decision in relation to that application only. The issue is whether the questions raised, and the facts underpinning them, meet the constitutional criteria for leave. Where leave is granted, any issue canvassed in the application will in due course be disposed of in the substantive decision of the Court.

The issues

4 The EAT matter concerned the statutory remedy available in circumstances where an incorrect version of the employer's name was given on the applicant's contract of employment, although it is clear from the papers that he wishes to raise a great many more issues. The Rights Commissioner found in his favour insofar as the respondent was directed to produce an amended version of the contract but refused to order compensation. The applicant then appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal and from thence to the High Court by way of an originating notice of motion. Under the relevant statutory procedures such an appeal is on a point of law only.

5 The Labour Court matter concerned a complaint of racial discrimination that was unsuccessful before...