Zalewski v Adjudication Office & ors [2021] IESC 24 (06 April 2021)

Zalewski v Adjudication Office & ors [2021] IESC 24 (06 April 2021)

The Supreme Court held that certain aspects of the WRC adjudication process, specifically the lack of provision for evidence on oath and the absence of a public hearing, were unconstitutional. The Court found that the WRC's determination of employment rights constitutes the administration of justice and must comply with constitutional requirements. However, the Court upheld the general validity of the WRC process, subject to these procedural modifications.

Citation
[2021] IESC 24
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Tomasz Zalewski; Respondent: An Adjudication Officer; Respondent: The Workplace Relations Commission; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General; Notice Party: Buywise Discount Store Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge / Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Partially allowed; certain provisions declared unconstitutional
Legal Topics
Administration of Justice, Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Separation of Powers, Right to Public Hearing, Judicial Review
Constitutional Law Employment Law Administrative Law Administration of Justice Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Separation of Powers Right to Public Hearing +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tomasz Zalewski

Applicant/appellant

An Adjudication Officer

Respondent

The Workplace Relations Commission

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Buywise Discount Store Limited

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge / Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicative process under the Workplace Relations Act 2015 constitutes the administration of justice reserved to courts under the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the statutory framework for employment disputes under the 2015 Act vindicates constitutional and ECHR rights
  3. 3 Whether the procedures before adjudication officers meet constitutional standards of fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that certain aspects of the WRC adjudication process, specifically the lack of provision for evidence on oath and the absence of a public hearing, were unconstitutional. The Court found that the WRC's determination of employment rights constitutes the administration of justice and must comply with constitutional requirements. However, the Court upheld the general validity of the WRC process, subject to these procedural modifications.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed; certain provisions declared unconstitutional

Orders

  • Declaration that the absence of provision for evidence on oath and public hearings in WRC adjudication is unconstitutional
  • Suspension of the declaration for a limited period to allow legislative amendment