This case involved appeals against the decisions of the EAT regarding the Acts. The respondent, a cousin of the first named appellant, claimed that she worked as a domestic worker for the appellants for over 2 years. She claims that she did general housekeeping duties and looked after the appellants' three children.

She claims that she worked seven days a week and never had a day off, with work hours from 7am to at least 11pm daily, and was paid €150 per month. The respondents deny that the appellant ever worked for them and claimed that the respondent had asked if she could come to visit, and that they already had a babysitter for their three children.

The first named appellant claims he had signed papers so the respondent could obtain a visitor's visa and that after a few months the respondent began looking for work in local shops. The appellants claim that the respondent left their home without telling them and later came back for a period.

The EAT noted the major conflict of evidence but resolved same in favour of the respondent. The appellants submit that the EAT failed in dealing with the legality of the contract and that such was inexplicable in the circumstances. In addition, they contended that the contractual and legislative protection afforded to the respondent was wrong in law and that her illegal status had not been considered. The respondent submitted that it is not open to the Court in an appeal on a point of law to make new findings of fact, or interfere with findings of fact by the EAT. She claimed that the Court is restricted to examining whether an undocumented employee with an implied contract of employment has employment rights under the Acts.

Finally, she submitted that there is no specific provision under the Acts which prohibit undocumented employees from availing of the protections for employees under the legislation, and that the Act of 2014 protects undocumented employees from abusive work practices.

The Court held that the findings of fact from which the EAT drew inferences of law are not open to review by the Court, and agreed that the EAT was justified in concluding that the parties had entered into an employment relationship.  The Court stated that it could not be said that the EAT made an error in relation to the legality of the contract as it was not argued before them, nor was considered by them. The Court found that the hearing before the EAT was a full rehearing and they were not necessarily aware of the Rights Commissioner's decision regarding the case or the legality of the contract. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal as the matters raised in the appeal were not raised or adjudicated on by the EAT, and there was nothing to suggest that they should have done so on its own motion.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/c3dc81ad94e877ba8025829100398091?OpenDocument