Zalewski v Adjudication Officer
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell J.,O'Malley J.,Finlay Geoghegan J. |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IESCDET 94 |
| Docket Number | S:AP:IE:2018:000045 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 03 July 2018 |
[2018] IESCDET 94
THE SUPREME COURT
DETERMINATION
O'Donnell J.
O'Malley J.
Finlay Geoghegan J.
S:AP:IE:2018:000045
AND
Locus standi – Constitutional declarations – Workplace Relations Act 2015 – Applicant seeking to challenge to the validity of identified sections of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 – Whether the applicant had locus standi
Facts: The applicant, Mr Zalewski, was dismissed from his employment as a supervisor with the notice party, Buywise Discount Store Ltd, on the 26th April, 2016 and submitted a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and a claim in respect of unpaid notice under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The adjudication of the claims was made pursuant to the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The applicant lodged a claim which came before the first respondent, the adjudication officer. The adjudication office issued a decision on the 16th December, 2016. The applicant then applied for and was granted leave by the High Court (Noonan J) on the 20th February, 2017 to apply by way of judicial review for reliefs which included declarations that s. 40, and/or s. 41 and/or s. 42 and/or s. 43 and/or s. 44 and/or s. 45 and/or s. 47 and/or s. 48 of the 2015 Act and/or s. 8 of the 1977 Act are invalid having regard to a number of specified articles of the Constitution and if necessary a declaration of incompatibility with the State’s obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights. The reliefs in respect of which leave was granted also included an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the 16th December, 2016 and certain further orders. The respondents issued a motion in which they sought inter alia an order dismissing the reliefs sought by the applicant challenging the constitutional validity of the relevant sections of the 2015 and 1977 Acts upon the grounds that the applicant no longer has locus standi to seek the relevant reliefs. On the 8th February, 2018, the High Court decided that the applicant did not have locus standi to challenge the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the 2015 Act or to maintain a claim under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court decision, contending that the decision raised the issue of the required locus standi to challenge to the constitutional validity of a statute which is a matter of general public importance. The respondents contended that the decision involved the application of the well-established principles in accordance with Cahill v Sutton [1980] IR 269 in relation to the required locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of an Act and did not involve a matter of general public importance.
Held by O’Donnell, O’Malley and Finley Geoghegan JJ that the locus standi of the applicant to continue with his challenge to the validity of the identified sections of the 2015 Act (and possibly the 1977 Act) for which leave had been granted in circumstances where the specific decision also challenged had been quashed by agreement and his claim remitted for determination in accordance with the 2015 Act did involve a matter of general public importance. The Court held that it was an issue which affected the pursuit of the claim made in relation to the dismissal in 2016 in judicial review proceedings in which leave was granted in February 2017 and was unlikely to benefit from refinement in the Court of Appeal. In those circumstances the Court was satisfied that the additional threshold for a direct appeal from the High Court had been met.
O’Donnell, O’Malley and Finley Geoghegan JJ held that they would grant leave pursuant to Article 34.5.4.
Leave to appeal granted.
| COURT: High Court |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 8th February, 2018 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 13th March, 2018 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 20th March, 2018 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 28th March, 2018 AND WAS IN TIME. |
This determination relates to an application, under Art. 34.5.4. of the Constitution, for leave to appeal directly from the order of the High Court (Meenan J.) made on the 13th March, 2018 for the reasons set out in two written judgments delivered on the 8th February, 2018: [2018] IEHC 59 and 13th March, 2018: [2018] IEHC 156.
As is clear from the terms of the Constitution and many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the Thirty Third Amendment it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave, that it be established that the decision sought to be appealed either involves a matter of general public importance or that it is otherwise in the interest of justice necessary that there be an appeal to this Court. In addition because this is an application for leave to appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zalewski v Adjudication Officer
...19 The appellant was granted leave to appeal from the entire order of the High Court by a determination issued on 3 July 2018: [2018] IESCDET 94. In that, the Court decided that the locus standi of the applicant to continue with his challenge to the validity of the identified sections of th......