Zalewski v Adjudication Officer & ors (Approved) [2021] IESC 29 (15 April 2021)

Zalewski v Adjudication Officer & ors (Approved) [2021] IESC 29 (15 April 2021)

Sections 41(13) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and 8(6) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 are inconsistent with the Constitution as they require private hearings and lack provision for oaths or penalties for untruthful evidence; the applicant is entitled to full costs due to the public interest and significant success on appeal.

Citation
[2021] IESC 29
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
15 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Appeal / Post Judgment Ruling on Final Orders and Costs
Outcome
Declarations granted as to unconstitutionality of certain statutory provisions; full costs awarded to applicant; no further orders of certiorari or remittal made by Supreme Court.
Legal Topics
Administration of Justice, Unfair Dismissal, Public Hearings, Oaths and Affirmations, Costs in Public Interest Litigation
Constitutional Law Labour Law Administration of Justice Unfair Dismissal Public Hearings Oaths and Affirmations Costs in Public Interest Litigation

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 3 Party arguments 2
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 Appeal / Post Judgment Ruling on Final Orders and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the adjudicative function of Adjudication Officers constitutes administration of justice under Article 34 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether certain statutory provisions mandating private hearings and lacking provision for oaths/penalties for untruthful evidence are unconstitutional
  3. 3 Appropriate declarations and orders to be made following the main judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 41(13) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and 8(6) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 are inconsistent with the Constitution as they require private hearings and lack provision for oaths or penalties for untruthful evidence; the applicant is entitled to full costs due to the public interest and significant success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted as to unconstitutionality of certain statutory provisions; full costs awarded to applicant; no further orders of certiorari or remittal made by Supreme Court.

Orders

  • Declaration that s.41(13) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and s.8(6) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 are inconsistent with the Constitution
  • Declaration regarding absence of provision for oaths/affirmations and penalties for untruthful evidence