Miley and Others v Employment Appeals Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Hedigan,
• Judgment Date: 18 May 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] JILL-HC 051801
• Date: 18 May 2009
• Court: High Court

[2009] JILL-HC 051801

THE HIGH COURT

Miley & Ors v Employment Appeals Tribunal & Burke

JUDICIAL REVIEW

IN THE MATTER OF THE UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACT, 1977 -2005

IN THE MATTER OF THE MINIMUM NOTICE IN TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT, 1973-2001

BETWEEN/

STEPHEN MILEY, STEPHEN MILEY & DEVILS GLEN EQUESTRIAN CENTRE LIMITED, DEVILS GLEN PARTNERSHIP

APPLICANTS

-and-

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

RESPONDENT

-and-

PAUL BURKE

NOTICE PARTY

F (O) v JUDGE O'DONNELL & ORS 2010 1 ILRM 198 2009/21/5263 2009 IEHC 142

R v HASTINGS LICENSING JUSTICES, EX PARTE JOHN LOVIBOND & SONS LTD 1968 2 AER 270 1968 1 WLR 735

R v LIVERPOOL JUSTICES, EX PARTE ROBERTS 1960 2 AER 384 1960 1 WLR 585

Mr Justice Hedigan,

1 This is an application for Judicial Review of a determination of the Employment Appeals Tribunal dated 9 December 2008. Leave to apply for Judicial Review was granted by Mr. Justice MacMenamin on 13 February 2009.

2 The Applicants seek,inter alia, an Order of Certiorari quashing the determination of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Neither the Employment Appeals Tribunal nor the Notice Party have filed opposition papers in this matter. The Applicants also seek the costs of these proceedings. The Respondent is opposing the application for costs.

3 I accept the legal principles as set out by O'Neill J inF v Judge Hugh O'Donnell & ors (Unapproved judgment of O'Neill J delivered on 27 March 2009) and in the English cases of R v Hastings Licensing Justices, exparte John Lovibond and Sons Ltd and Others [1968] 2 All ER 270, R v Liverpool Justices, exparte Roberts [1960] 2 All ER 384 where it has been stated that it is not the practice to grant costs against magistrates or tribunals merely because they have made a mistake of law but only if they have acted improperly, that is to say, perversely or some disregard to the elementary principles which every court ought to obey, and even then only if it was a flagrant instance.

4 In this case there was an entirely unsatisfactory hearing. While there is uncontradicted evidence of an extraordinary hearing before the Respondent I understand the wish of the Respondent not to become involved. If such serious allegations against the fairness of the hearing are made, the Respondent would have to swear an Affidavit countering these allegations or agree to pay the costs.

5 On the basis of the facts as sworn in the Affidavits of the Applicant, it is...