Miley & ors -v- Employment Appeals Tribunal & ors [2016] IESC 20 (10 May 2016)

Miley & ors -v- Employment Appeals Tribunal & ors [2016] IESC 20 (10 May 2016)

The EAT, as a quasi-judicial body, is entitled to immunity from costs orders in judicial review proceedings where it does not participate, unless it acts with mala fides or impropriety. In this case, the EAT did not act with mala fides or impropriety, so the costs order against it was not justified and the appeal was allowed.

Citation
[2016] IESC 20
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Stephen Miley; Applicant/respondent: Devil’s Glen Equestrian Centre Ltd; Applicant/respondent: Devil’s Glen Partnership; Respondent/appellant: Employment Appeals Tribunal; Notice Party: Paul Bourke; Notice Party: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court on Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Costs in Judicial Review, Immunity of Tribunals, Unfair Dismissal, Natural Justice, Quasi Judicial Bodies
Administrative Law Employment Law Judicial Review Costs in Judicial Review Immunity of Tribunals Unfair Dismissal Natural Justice Quasi Judicial Bodies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Miley

Applicant/respondent

Devil’s Glen Equestrian Centre Ltd

Applicant/respondent

Devil’s Glen Partnership

Applicant/respondent

Employment Appeals Tribunal

Respondent/appellant

Paul Bourke

Notice Party

Attorney General

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court on Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) is immune from costs orders in judicial review proceedings where it does not participate
  2. 2 Whether the EAT lost immunity by acting with mala fides or impropriety

Ratio Decidendi

The EAT, as a quasi-judicial body, is entitled to immunity from costs orders in judicial review proceedings where it does not participate, unless it acts with mala fides or impropriety. In this case, the EAT did not act with mala fides or impropriety, so the costs order against it was not justified and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Costs order against the EAT set aside
  • EAT not liable for costs in the judicial review proceedings