Smith v Cisco System Internet Working Ireland) Ltd (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 225 (13 October 2022)

Smith v Cisco System Internet Working Ireland) Ltd (Unapproved) [2022] IECA 225 (13 October 2022)

The appellant failed to identify evidence meeting the Murphy criteria; written submissions and affidavits post-dating the trial are not evidence, and the only material identified (website screenshots) would not influence the result as the appeal is limited to a point of law. The application is misconceived and does not satisfy Order 86A, rule 4(c) or Murphy v. Minister for Defence.

Citation
[2022] IECA 225
Parties
Appellant: Olumide Smith; Respondent: Cisco Systems Internet Working (Ireland) Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal on a Point of Law / Court of Appeal Judgment on Application to Adduce New Evidence and Extension of Time
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Admission of New Evidence, Appeal Procedure, Extension of Time
Employment Law Equality Law Civil Procedure Discrimination Admission of New Evidence Appeal Procedure Extension of Time

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olumide Smith

Appellant

Cisco Systems Internet Working (Ireland) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal on a Point of Law / Court of Appeal Judgment on Application to Adduce New Evidence and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant may adduce new evidence in the Court of Appeal on a statutory appeal limited to a point of law
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to an extension of time to appeal the High Court's refusal of discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to identify evidence meeting the Murphy criteria; written submissions and affidavits post-dating the trial are not evidence, and the only material identified (website screenshots) would not influence the result as the appeal is limited to a point of law. The application is misconceived and does not satisfy Order 86A, rule 4(c) or Murphy v. Minister for Defence.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Application to adduce new evidence refused
  • No order on motion to extend time to appeal discovery refusal