Bennett v The Minister for Justice and Equality

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Noonan
• Judgment Date: 30 October 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 689
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2017 279 J.R.]
• Date: 30 October 2018

[2018] IEHC 689

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Noonan J.

[2017 279 J.R.]

BETWEEN

OLGA BENNETT

AND

MAIREAD MARRON

APPLICANTS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENT

Discovery of documents – Termination of contracts – Judicial review – Applicants seeking discovery of documents – Whether the discovery sought was necessary for the fair disposal of the issues arising

Facts: The applicants, Ms Bennett and Ms Marron, were appointed as assistant film censors in the 1990’s on foot of indeterminate contracts which provided for termination on the giving of one months’ notice. Their titles were subsequently changed by legislation to that of assistant classifiers. In more recent times, a number of other assistant classifiers were appointed, but, unlike the applicants, on fixed term contracts. In August 2016, the applicants were given notice by the respondent, the Minister for Justice and Equality, that their contracts would terminate on the 31st March, 2017. The contracts of the fixed term assistant classifiers also came to an end and a competition was arranged to engage new assistant classifiers which was open to those whose contracts had concluded, including the applicants. The applicants unsuccessfully applied to be re-engaged. The reason given by the respondent for termination of the applicants’ contracts was that the respondent had been advised that all assistant classifiers should be treated in a similar manner regardless of their type of contract. The applicants’ case however was that the respondent determined that the applicants be treated the same as assistant classifiers employed on fixed term contracts so as to avoid the provisions of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003. This was denied by the respondent. In judicial review proceedings, the applicants challenged the decision to terminate their contracts, primarily on the ground that the reason advanced by the respondent for doing so was arbitrary, irrational and perverse. The applicants applied to the High Court for discovery of documents. Two categories of document were sought but the first category was no longer actively pursued by the applicants. The remaining category was as follows: “All documentation relating to the respondent’s decision to terminate the applicants’ office, generated during the period between 1 April, 2015 and 31 March, 2017.”

Held by Noonan J that the applicants had not satisfied him that the discovery sought was necessary for the fair disposal of the issues arising.

Noonan J held that he would refuse the application.

Application refused.

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Noonan delivered on the 30th day of October, 2018

1 The applicants were appointed as assistant film censors in the 1990's on foot of indeterminate contracts which provided for termination on the giving of one months” notice. Their titles were subsequently changed by legislation to that of assistant classifiers. In more recent times, a number of other assistant classifiers were appointed, but, unlike the applicants, on fixed term contracts. In August 2016, the applicants were given notice by the respondent that their contracts would terminate on the 31st March, 2017. The contracts of the fixed term assistant classifiers also came to an end and a competition was arranged to engage new assistant classifiers which was...