High Court determines that appeal from Labour Court concerning alleged gender discrimination was properly constituted, where the employer was not named in the title to the notice of motion, on the grounds: a) that it was not a requirement of the rules that the employer be named in the title; and b) as all parties had been correctly served, no prejudice could have been caused and the striking out of the appeal would have amounted to a disproportionate interference with the appellant's right of access to the courts.
Employment law - fixed term contract - university lecturer - complaint of discrimination on grounds of gender - s. 76 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 - allegation that employee had been passed over for promotion - claim referred to Equality Officer - claim dismissed - appeal to Labour Court - appeal dismissed - s. 90(1) of the 1998 Act - whether appeal properly before court - Order 106, RSC - failure to name employer in originating notice of motion - notice of motion to be served on all parties to the decision - 21-day appeal period - representative of Central Office informed trainee solicitor that Labour Court was correct respondent, and not employer - name of employer removed manually from notice of motion - notice then served on Labour Court and employer - order by Deputy Master of High Court joining employer as co-respondent - application to High Court for order determining that appeal had been properly constituted - whether title to proceedings was correct - no requirement that employer be named as respondent to the appeal in Order 106, rule 3, RSC - whether striking out proceedings would compromise constitutional right of access to the court.