Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court addressed the issue of costs and the final order in a statutory appeal concerning a finding that a pilot was directly employed by an airline for the purposes of the social welfare code. The court determined that the Appeals Officer had erred in law by inferring an implied employment contract where there was no supporting evidence and set aside the decision. Instead, it restored an earlier finding that the individual was employed by a different company. On costs, although the airline was overall successful, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs, noting the statutory context and the fact that the airline was not entirely successful on all preliminary points. The court also stayed its orders pending any appeal.
statutory appeal – social welfare code – implied contract of employment – insurable employment – costs discretion – Order 90 of RSC – Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) – labour law – pilot employment status – appeal against Chief Appeals Officer – section 327 Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 – restoration of initial decision – extension of time to appeal – stay pending appeal
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.