Memorex World Trade Corporation v E.A.T.

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date01 January 1990
Date01 January 1990
Docket Number[1988 No. 230 J.R.]
CourtHigh Court

High Court

[1988 No. 230 J.R.]
Memorex World Trade Corporation v. Employment Appeals Tribunal
Memorex World Trade Corporation trading as Memorex Media Products
Applicant
and
The Employment Appeals Tribunal, Respondent

Cases mentioned in this report:—

Kiely v. Minister for Social WelfareIR [1977] I.R. 267.

The King (Martin) v. MahonyIR [1910] 2 I.R. 695.

The State (Abenglen Properties) v. Corporation of DublinIRDLRM [1984] I.R. 381; [1982] I.L.R.M. 590.

The State (Keegan) v. Stardust Compensation TribunalIRDLRM [1986] I.R. 642; [1987] I.L.R.M. 202.

Judicial review - Certiorari - Employment - Unfair dismissal - Decision of Employment Appeals Tribunal - Tribunal giving "direction" at conclusion of applicant's evidence - No evidence given by claimant - Whether Tribunal has duty to hear all available evidence - Whether Tribunal erred within jurisdiction - Whether Tribunal decision was open to challenge by way of judicial review.

Employment Appeals Tribunal - Unfair dismissal - Decision of Tribunal - Statutory requirements - Duty of Tribunal- Whether Tribunal has duty to hear all available evidence - Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 (No. 10).

Judicial Review.

On the 18th July, 1988, the applicant obtained ex parte in the High Court, leave to apply for an order of certiorari by way of judicial review quashing the respondent's decision to award compensation to the claimant for unfair dismissal. The application was grounded upon a statement of grounds dated the 18th July, 1988, and the grounding affidavit of Sean Walsh filed in court on the same date. By notice of motion dated the 27th July, 1988, the applicant applied for the said order. The claimant was brought into the proceedings as a notice party. He filed a statement of grounds of opposition to the application together with a replying affidavit on the 29th August, 1988.

The facts and arguments have been summarised in the headnote and are set out in the judgment of Carroll J., infra.

The application was heard by the High Court (Carroll J.), on the 22nd and 23rd November, 1988. There was no appearance by the respondent at the hearing of the application.

Section 6, sub-s. 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, places the onus on an employer to show good cause for the dismissal of an employee.

The respondent heard a claim against the applicant employer by a former employee for unfair dismissal. At the hearing, the applicant's case was opened by its solicitor and witnesses were called to give oral evidence on its behalf. At the closing of the applicant's case the claimant's solicitor sought and the respondent purported to grant a direction on the ground of the credibility of one of the applicant's witnesses and went on to hold that the claimant was unaware of certain facts though he had not gone into evidence. The respondent decided the claim in favour of the claimant and awarded compensation.

The applicant sought an order of certiorari by way of judicial review of the respondent's decision on the grounds that the respondent had misdirected itself in law and acted in excess of or without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The applicant argued that the Tribunal ought to have heard all the evidence available to it and that, in the absence of evidence from the claimant as to the unfairness of his dismissal, the respondent was not in a position to exercise its jurisdiction to award redress to the claimant. The claimant appeared as a notice party and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Dennigan & Company v Rights Commissioner Jim O'Connell
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 25 April 2016
    ...alternative warranting refusal of relief by way of judicial review); Memorex World Trade Corporation v. Employment Appeals Tribunal [1990] 2 I.R. 184 ( per Carroll J, holding at p. 188 that the appeal by way of rehearing to the Circuit Court rendered certiorari of the tribunal inappropriate......
  • UPC Communications Ireland Ltd v Employment Appeals Tribunal
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 October 2017
    ...always be heard afresh on appeal.' 35 Reliance had also been placed upon Memorex World Trade Corporation v. Employment Appeals Tribunal [1990] 2 I.R. 184; Harte v. Labour Court [1996] 2 I.R. 171; Rajah v. Royal College of Surgeons [1994] 1 I.R. 384; and The State (Davidson) v. Farrell [......
  • O'Brien v South Tipperary County Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 22 October 2002
    ...NOVA COLOUR GRAPHIC SUPPLIES LTD V EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL 1987 IR 426 MEMOREX WORLD TRADE CORPORATION V EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL 1990 2 IR 184 MCGOLDRICK V AN BORD PLEANALA 1997 1 IR 497 EIRCELL LTD V LEITRIM CO COUNCIL 2000 1 IR 479 MARTIN V AN BORD PLEANALA 2002 2 IR 655 200......
  • Stefan v Minister for Justice
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 13 November 2001
    ... ... ABENGLEN PROPERTIES LTD, STATE V DUBLIN CORPORATION 1984 IR 381 GLOVER, STATE V MCCARTHY 1981 ILRM ... V EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL 1987 IR 426 MEMOREX V EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL 1992 IR 184 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT