The Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) and the Labour Court (the “Court”) each recently issued a decision in Conor Gilligan v Derrin Group Management Limited (ADJ-00058189) (WRC decision) and Accountancy & Business College (Ireland) Limited t/a Dublin Business School v Amir Sajad Esmaeily (UD/24/134) (Labour Court decision) which provide useful guidance on a Complainant’s duty to mitigate their financial loss in claims for unfair dismissal and the consequences where they have not appropriately mitigated their loss.
Conor Gilligan v Derrin Group Management Limited (ADJ-00058189)
Facts: The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as CEO in July 2022. The Complainant was dismissed on 8th November 2024 for alleged gross misconduct and brought a claim for unfair dismissal and argued that his dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair. The Respondent, which dealt with the construction of residential properties, stated that he was not unfairly dismissed and without prejudice to the foregoing, argued that the Complainant had contributed to his dismissal and failed to sufficiently mitigate his loss.
The Respondent argued that the Complainant had delayed in looking for work following his dismissal in November 2024 and the 17 applications (3 of which were board appointments) he had made were not sufficient. The Complainant stated that he had received a provisional offer of employment in January 2025, however it fell through. The Complainant also confirmed that he did not limit his applications to CEO applications and that his current role was that of an MD reporting into the CEO at a lower salary.
Decision: The WRC Adjudicator, Brid Deering, determined that the Respondent had failed to establish substantial grounds for the dismissal and did not follow fair procedures. The Complainant was also found not to have contributed to his dismissal. The Adjudicator deemed compensation was the appropriate remedy for the Complainant’s unfair dismissal, subject to the statutory cap of 104 weeks’ remuneration.
In determining the mitigation of loss of the Complainant, the Adjudicator considered the decision in Sheehan v Continental Administration Company Limited (UD/858/1999)
“The Claimant is obligated to seek and secure such measures that will minimise the losses potentially sustainable. In other words the Claimant must reasonably avoid the consequences of the Respondent’s wrongful act of dismissal. Thus, the Tribunal by virtue of section 7 (2) (c) is required to have regard to “.. the measures (if any) adopted by the employee or, as the case may be, his failure to adopt measures, to mitigate the costs aforesaid…” In considering the element of mitigation under section 7 (2) (c) it is necessary to establish:
1. What steps (if any) the Claimant took to lessen the losses sustained;
2. Were the steps so taken, reasonable, adequate and sufficient; and
3. Ought the Claimant to have taken other steps, not necessarily obvious steps, which a reasonably careful and reasonably prudent employee, would have taken?
In assessing the loss the Tribunal is conscious of the fact that the Claimant cannot recover for losses that could have been reduced or off-set by a course of action which the Claimant ought reasonably to have undertaken . . . the issue is not a question of what the Claimant could have done, but rather what he could reasonably have been expected to do . . . . ”
The Adjudicator also noted the decision of the Labour Court in Q-park Ireland Limited v. Fitzpatrick (UDD2135), that it is a well-established principle that a dismissed employee’s time is not their own and they are required to apply part of every normal working day to securing alternative employment.
While the Respondent in the case argued that the Complainant failed to mitigate his loss; the Adjudication Officer was satisfied that following his dismissal in November 2024 the Complainant made reasonable and sufficient efforts to secure alternative employment, having regard to his senior executive status and the limited availability of comparable roles. It was noted that the Complainant had registered with a recruitment agency within a month of his dismissal. The Complainant then secured a first interview in January 2025 for the position of CEO. He had a second interview in February 2025, however he was informed in March 2025 that he had not being successful but was thanked for the “significant time and effort [he] invested throughout the interview process”. For the remainder of March 2025, the Complaint interviewed/applied for three further senior positions and registered with Public Jobs. From April to June the Complainant registered with other agencies and platforms and applied for four to six positions each month. Efforts made by the Complainant in September 2025 resulted in him securing a position in October 2025.
In calculating financial loss, the Adjudication Officer determined that the Complainant should be compensated in full for his actual loss, with the deduction of the six‑month contractual notice period, which was awarded separately under a Payment of Wages claim. Actual loss was therefore limited to 23 weeks’ net pay from May 2025 to September 2025, amounting to €51,169.94.
The Complainant was also paid €715.50 less weekly in his new position than his previous position with the Respondent. Although ongoing prospective loss was accepted, the Adjudicator did not accept that it should be until retirement age. The Adjudicator noted the Complainant’s age, seniority of position, likelihood of future pay increases, likelihood of other opportunities to mitigate his loss prior to retirement and awarded two years’ prospective loss as just and equitable, in the amount of €74,412.
The total compensation awarded for the unfair dismissal was €125,581.94.
Accountancy & Business College (Ireland) Limited t/a Dublin Business School v Amir Sajad Esmaeily (UD/24/134)
Facts: This case was an appeal by Mr Amir Sajad Esmaeily (the “Complainant”) from a decision of the WRC in relation to the quantum of the award from his unfair dismissal claim. The Complainant was awarded €53,000 in compensation in the WRC. The Complainant had been employed as a lecturer by the Respondent from 2018 until his employment was terminated on 3 February 2023 for breach of company policies.
The Complainant argued that the compensation awarded was inadequate and “did not reflect the impact and duration of his losses”, as his annual income had consistently exceeded €91,000. The Complainant submitted that he had applied for more than 65 roles prior to the WRC hearing and a further 51 roles prior to the Labour Court hearing in February 2026, in both academic and corporate sectors. The Complainant obtained two part-time lecturing positions and earned approximately €52,000 in the two years from his dismissal, far lower than the €185,00 he would have earned had he still been employed by the Respondent. The Complainant submitted that in total he had made 114 applications, yet the WRC award was considerably lower than that awarded in comparable cases where few applications were made to demonstrate sufficient efforts to mitigate loss.
The Respondent had accepted that fair procedures were not followed in terminating the Complainant’s employment and conceded that the dismissal was unfair. On that basis, the Complainant contended that a just and equitable award should be in the range of €150,000.
The Respondent submitted that the Complainant failed to mitigate his losses in an adequate manner, stating that it appeared he had only applied for 36 positions from February 2023 to August 2024, and none outside his area of expertise Artificial Intelligence /data analyst and very few positions outside academia. The Respondent also noted that there was several months where no applications were made and in 2024 there was only evidence of 5 applications. The Respondent argued that this fell short of the test established in Sheehan and Continental Administration Company Limited UD 858/1999
The Respondent also noted the decision in Murphy v Independent News & Media UD841/2013, which found that the claimant limited her search for alternative work to her area of expertise only and her award of compensation was reduced as a result.
Decision: The Court noted from the decision in Sheehan what was required to be established when considering mitigation and “the issue is not a question of what the Claimant could have done, but rather what he could reasonably have been expected to do”. It is then for the Respondent to show that the Complainant did not act reasonably in all the circumstances to minimise his loss.
In considering whether the Complainant could have done more to offset his loss, the Court accepted that the Complainant gave credible evidence of his job applications in 2023 and 2024. The Court also accepted that it was reasonable to focus his initial job search efforts to his academic areas of expertise and noted that when this proved unsuccessful the Complainant expanded his applications outside of academia.
The Court was of the view that having regard to all the circumstances, the Complainant had made reasonable efforts to mitigate his loss. However, the Court was “not fully satisfied that the efforts made were sufficient and adequate in nature to mitigate fully against all losses incurred”. The Court noted the limited evidence provided to mitigate his loss since 2024 and several months where no applications were made.
The maximum award payable was €182,266 (two year’s remuneration), with the adjustment of the earnings the Complainant received for his part-time lecturing positions of €52,000. The Court considered both the mitigating and aggravating factors and determined the appropriate amount of compensation was €104,000 being just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.
Takeaway for Employers: These recent decisions from the WRC and Labour Court underline that mitigation of loss remains a significant factor in the assessment of compensation for unfair dismissal. However, it is not the only factor and the discretion provided by the wording just and equitable in all the circumstances was exercised by the Labour Court in their findings in the case above. While an employee is expected to take reasonable steps to secure alternative employment, the adequacy of those efforts will be assessed in light of their individual circumstances, including seniority, expertise and the availability of comparable roles. For employers, the key point is that any argument on failure to mitigate should be supported by clear documentary evidence, including gaps in job-search activity, limited applications, or a failure to broaden the search over time.
However, these decisions also demonstrate that even where mitigation efforts are found to be less than fully sufficient, substantial awards may still be made. Accordingly, fair procedures and substantive justification for dismissal remain an employer’s primary protection, with mitigation arguments operating mainly to reduce, rather than eliminate an award of compensation.
Links to Decisions:
Authors- Ethna Dillon and Anne O’Connell
24th April 2026
AOC Solicitors
19-22 Baggot Street Lower
Dublin 2
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.