Zalewski v Adjudication Officer

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: O'Donnell J.,Charleton J.,O'Malley J.
• Judgment Date: 28 July 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 93
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2020:000066
• Date: 28 July 2020

BETWEEN

TOMASZ ZALEWSKI

APPLICANT

AND

ADJUDICATION OFFICER (ROSALEEN GLACKIN)

THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS COMMISSION

IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

AND

BUYWISE DISCOUNT STORE LIMITED

NOTICE PARTY

[2020] IESCDET 93

O'Donnell J.

Charleton J.

O'Malley J.

S:AP:IE:2020:000066

2017 No. 146 JR

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: High Court

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 21 st April, 2020

DATE OF ORDER: 22 nd May, 2020

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 22 nd May, 2020

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 11 th June, 2020 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations:

1 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal, having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment, have now been considered in a number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B. S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v. Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 IR 812. The additional criteria required to be met in order that the so-called ‘leapfrog appeal’ directly from the High Court to this Court can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of the court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published, along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties in any detail. No aspect of this ruling has precedential value as a matter of law.

Introduction

3 In these proceedings the applicant challenges the constitutionality of the adjudicative process established under the Workplace Relations Act 2015. In particular, issues are raised as to whether that process amounts to the administration of justice...