workers rights

periodictable

I'm not sure if this has been covered over the last few months, but I've been reading a little on the High Court decision last August regarding the Pakistani man and his entitlement to relief.http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/award-of-92k-to-pakistani-chef-quashed-by-high-court-3216189.html
Because his employment contract was illegal, he could not avail of any remedy for a breach of employment rights.
Does the ruling refer specifically related to an out of date work permit, as in this case, or does it extend to other situations such as if one works illegally here, whether through an invalid work permit or because they are simply illegal, that he or she will be denied any or all remedies? It seems to be analogous to the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree. Looks like a can of worms?

Procrastastudy

periodictable wrote: »

I'm not sure if this has been covered over the last few months, but I've been reading a little on the High Court decision last August regarding the Pakistani man and his entitlement to relief.http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/award-of-92k-to-pakistani-chef-quashed-by-high-court-3216189.html
Because his employment contract was illegal, he could not avail of any remedy for a breach of employment rights.
Does the ruling refer specifically related to an out of date work permit, as in this case, or does it extend to other situations such as if one works illegally here, whether through an invalid work permit or because they are simply illegal, that he or she will be denied any or all remedies? It seems to be analogous to the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree. Looks like a can of worms?

Its the separation of powers and deference to the legislator no matter how stupid the legislator want to be.

234

periodictable wrote: »

I'm not sure if this has been covered over the last few months, but I've been reading a little on the High Court decision last August regarding the Pakistani man and his entitlement to relief.http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/award-of-92k-to-pakistani-chef-quashed-by-high-court-3216189.html
Because his employment contract was illegal, he could not avail of any remedy for a breach of employment rights.
Does the ruling refer specifically related to an out of date work permit, as in this case, or does it extend to other situations such as if one works illegally here, whether through an invalid work permit or because they are simply illegal, that he or she will be denied any or all remedies? It seems to be analogous to the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree. Looks like a can of worms?

It could potentially mean that in any circumstances where the contract of employment is void, (as opposed to voidable). A whole host of rights, entitlements and laws will not apply because they are contingent on the existence of a valid contract of employment.

What is ridiculous is making a work permit an absolute condition for a valid contract of employment.

ResearchWill

234 wrote: »

It could potentially mean that in any circumstances where the contract of employment is void, (as opposed to voidable). A whole host of rights, entitlements and laws will not apply because they are contingent on the existence of a valid contract of employment.

What is ridiculous is making a work permit an absolute condition for a valid contract of employment.

The judgement does not really say what you state. http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/3f2a0cfdd0d10ccd80257a6b004e2e1b?OpenDocument

Some illegal contracts can still under the Acts get protection of the Law as set out in the Acts. What the judgement says about a person in employment with out a work permit is that the contract can not be legal. While I don't like the judgement in my opinion it is correct in law. Knowing the judge in question he would have done anything legal to give a different verdict.

234

Perhaps I wasn't clear. What I wrote above was not a summary of the judgment. I'm aware of the fact that certain illegalities such as defrauding the Revenue Commissioners are mentioned as examples of illegalities that do not void the contract. What I wrote was a possible interpretation of the principle in that case that might be used in the future.

ResearchWill wrote: »

The judgement does not really say what you state. http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/3f2a0cfdd0d10ccd80257a6b004e2e1b?OpenDocument

Some illegal contracts can still under the Acts get protection of the Law as set out in the Acts. What the judgement says about a person in employment with out a work permit is that the contract can not be legal. While I don't like the judgement in my opinion it is correct in law. Knowing the judge in question he would have done anything legal to give a different verdict.

ResearchWill

234 wrote: »

Perhaps I wasn't clear. What I wrote above was not a summary of the judgment. I'm aware of the fact that certain illegalities such as defrauding the Revenue Commissioners are mentioned as examples of illegalities that do not void the contract. What I wrote was a possible interpretation of the principle in that case that might be used in the future.

The judgment from my reading covers any illegal contract that does not have a statutory protection. It may even cover issuses totally outside the employment sphere. Say a bank gave you or me an illegal loan say to buy shares in the said bank can they then enforce said loan.

234

But it could be even wider than that. Since illegality is only one of the grounds for voidness the judgment could have application across a variety of factual situations.

ResearchWill

234 wrote: »

But it could be even wider than that. Since illegality is only one of the grounds for voidness the judgment could have application across a variety of factual situations.

But the court did not refuse relief because contract was void but because it was illegal.

"Conclusions
21. In the light of these considerations, neither the Rights Commissioner nor the Labour Court could lawfully entertain an application for relief in respect of an employment contract which is substantively illegal in this fashion. For those reasons, the decisions of the Labour Court cannot be allowed to stand."

Contract law has long set the principles about void and voidable contracts.

234

ResearchWill wrote: »

But the court did not refuse relief because
contract was void but because it was illegal.

"Conclusions
21. In the light of these considerations, neither the Rights Commissioner nor the Labour Court could lawfully entertain an application for relief in respect of an employment contract which is substantively illegal in this fashion. For those reasons, the decisions of the Labour Court cannot be allowed to stand."

Contract law has long set the principles about void and voidable contracts.

Yes, but there is nothing special about illegality from the point of view of contract law. It's one of the grounds for voidness. So there is a potential wider application even though not specifically dealt with in the case.

ResearchWill

234 wrote: »

Yes, but there is nothing special about illegality from the point of view of contract law. It's one of the grounds for voidness. So there is a potential wider application even though not specifically dealt with in the case.

Entering into a contract of employment as a non eu national with out permision is not only illegal it's criminal for both the employer and employee. This case is not about if any contract is void etc. it only relates to this situation because the matter is statutory illegal and criminal. I suppose it would also cover any claim by a contract killer who tries to collect his fee in the High Court when the guy who hired him refuses to pay.

If you want to give any examples of the wider use of this case please do, but it is a well established principle that illegal contracts can not be sued upon and even more so criminal contracts.

As an example Lewis v. Squash Ireland [1983] ILRM 363, a employee was paid some of his wages as expenses, contract illegal could not claim for UFD the law was changed by the amendment mention in the case mentioned earlier so now such a contract he could sue on.

234

ResearchWill wrote: »

Entering into a contract of employment as a non eu national with out permision is not only illegal it's criminal for both the employer and employee. This case is not about if any contract is void etc. it only relates to this situation because the matter is statutory illegal and criminal. I suppose it would also cover any claim by a contract killer who tries to collect his fee in the High Court when the guy who hired him refuses to pay.

If you want to give any examples of the wider use of this case please do, but it is a well established principle that illegal contracts can not be sued upon and even more so criminal contracts.

As an example Lewis v. Squash Ireland [1983] ILRM 363, a employee was paid some of his wages as expenses, contract illegal could not claim for UFD the law was changed by the amendment mention in the case mentioned earlier so now such a contract he could sue on.

I think we are talking at cross purposes so let's just leave it there rather than sustain this thread any longer.