1. Introduction
The case of Daniela De La Torre Ruiz v Hamilton UK Services Ireland Limited (ADJ-00049851), decided in March 2025, is a striking example of the WRC’s approach to compensation under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 where the employer concedes that the dismissal was without cause. The Adjudication Officer awarded the Complainant €145,122 — a substantial figure that reflects the financial impact of the loss of a senior position together with the Complainant’s reasonable efforts at mitigation.
The Complainant gave sworn evidence and was cross-examined. The Respondent, having conceded the dismissal was without cause, did not present any witnesses. The case therefore turned, in substance, on the calculation of compensation under Section 7 of the 1977 Act — a question that has assumed renewed importance following a series of recent WRC and Labour Court decisions on the proper basis for calculating “remuneration” in unfair dismissal cases.
2. Legislation and Case Law
Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 establishes the presumption that the dismissal of an employee is unfair unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Where the employer concedes that the dismissal was without cause, the only remaining question for the Adjudication Officer is the appropriate redress.
Section 7(1) of the 1977 Act provides for three forms of redress: reinstatement under paragraph (a); re-engagement under paragraph (b); and compensation under paragraph (c). Compensation is the ordinary remedy where neither party seeks reinstatement or re-engagement. Section 7(1)(c)(i) caps compensation for financial loss at 104 weeks’ remuneration; Section 7(1)(c)(ii) provides for a maximum of four weeks’ remuneration where no financial loss has been incurred. Section 7(1A) extends the 104-week ceiling to 260 weeks where the dismissal results from a protected disclosure within Section 6(2)(ba).
Section 7(2) of the Act provides the criteria to which the Adjudication Officer must have regard in determining the amount of compensation: the extent to which the financial loss was attributable to acts of the employer or employee; the measures taken by the employee to mitigate the loss; the extent of the employee’s compliance with the employer’s procedures; and the extent of the employer’s compliance with its own procedures. The Labour Court has emphasised in cases including Sheehan v Continental Administration Co. Ltd (UD858/1999) that the duty to mitigate is a substantive one: an employee is required to take reasonable steps to find alternative employment.
The calculation of “remuneration” for the purposes of Section 7 has been the subject of considerable recent attention. The Unfair Dismissals (Calculation of Weekly Remuneration) Regulations 1977 (S.I. No. 287 of 1977) set out the method of calculation, including the treatment of variable elements such as bonuses, commission and benefits in kind. Where remuneration is wholly fixed, calculation is straightforward; where significant variable elements are involved, the Adjudication Officer must adopt a reasonable approach to the determination of a representative weekly figure.
3. Decision
The Adjudication Officer accepted that the dismissal was unfair, the Respondent having conceded that point. The substantive task before the Adjudication Officer was the determination of the appropriate compensation under Section 7(1)(c)(i).
On the question of financial loss, the Complainant gave evidence of her former remuneration, of her efforts to secure alternative employment, and of the actual income she had obtained since the dismissal. The Adjudication Officer accepted that the Complainant had taken reasonable steps to mitigate her loss and that her ongoing earnings did not fully replace the income that had been lost as a result of the unfair dismissal.
The Adjudication Officer applied the methodology set out in the 1977 Regulations to the calculation of weekly remuneration, taking into account both the fixed elements of the Complainant’s package and any variable elements that had reasonably accrued in the relevant reference period. The result was a weekly remuneration figure that, when applied across the period of loss, produced the substantial overall award.
The total award of €145,122 reflected the Complainant’s actual financial loss attributable to the dismissal, calculated by reference to the period during which the dismissal had caused her income to be reduced and adjusted to reflect her ongoing earnings. The award fell below the Section 7(1)(c)(i) ceiling of 104 weeks’ remuneration.
4. Takeaway
The case is an important reminder that an employer’s concession on liability does not foreclose careful consideration of quantum. Even where dismissal is conceded as without cause, the Adjudication Officer is required to apply Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts and the 1977 Regulations to the calculation of compensation. Mitigation, the period of loss, and the treatment of variable remuneration each require evidence and argument.
For employers facing a likely unfair dismissal complaint, the case underlines the importance of obtaining early legal advice on the quantum likely to be awarded. Where the employer’s conduct is indefensible, the question is rarely whether the dismissal was unfair; the question is what the compensation will be. Engagement with that question — including, where appropriate, a settlement offer reflecting realistic quantum — may be far more cost-effective than allowing the case to proceed to hearing.
Employers should also be mindful of the treatment of variable remuneration. Where the dismissed employee’s package included a meaningful bonus, commission or benefits-in-kind component, those elements may be included in the calculation of weekly remuneration under the 1977 Regulations. A package presented at recruitment as worth a particular amount will, in many cases, be treated as worth that amount for the purpose of calculating compensation.
For employees, the case shows the value of comprehensive documentation. Records of remuneration, of mitigation efforts, and of actual earnings post-dismissal are essential to support a substantial award. Practitioners should advise clients to maintain a clear paper trail of job applications, interviews, agency contact and offers received in the post-dismissal period.
5. Further information
This article was prepared for informational purposes only. For further advice, please email enquiries@crushell.ie or contact the offices of Crushell & Co Solicitors.
6. About Crushell & Co
Crushell & Co is a specialist law firm focused on protecting and advancing the rights of employees in Ireland. We offer a nationwide service, advising individuals on a wide range of legal and regulatory issues arising at work, including employment law, employment immigration and workplace accidents and injuries.
We help employees understand their position and options by translating complex legal issues into clear, practical advice. Our approach is tailored to each client, ensuring that our strategy is aligned with their personal and professional circumstances.
Connect: @CrushellLaw or www.wordpress-576593-6594403.cloudwaysapps.com
