Smyth -v- The Minister for Justice & Ors [2013] IEHC 110 (01 February 2013)

Smyth -v- The Minister for Justice & Ors [2013] IEHC 110 (01 February 2013)

No binding contract was formed as no formal offer was made; s.37(5) derogation applies to recruitment as well as employment, but the Minister has not defined the relevant date for age eligibility, so the scope of derogation is incomplete and cannot be relied upon by the respondents.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 110
Parties
Applicant: Michael Smyth; Respondents: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Respondents cannot rely on derogation; further hearing required to determine appropriate orders.
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Recruitment Procedures, Defence Forces Regulations, Derogation Under Employment Equality Act, Implementation of EU Directive
Employment Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law European Law Age Discrimination Recruitment Procedures Defence Forces Regulations Derogation Under Employment Equality Act +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Smyth

Applicant

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract existed between applicant and respondents for Defence Forces traineeship
  2. 2 Whether age restriction for Defence Forces recruitment breaches Employment Equality Act 1998 and Directive 2000/78/EC
  3. 3 Whether s.37(5) Employment Equality Act derogation applies to recruitment or only to employment

Ratio Decidendi

No binding contract was formed as no formal offer was made; s.37(5) derogation applies to recruitment as well as employment, but the Minister has not defined the relevant date for age eligibility, so the scope of derogation is incomplete and cannot be relied upon by the respondents.

Court Disposition

Respondents cannot rely on derogation; further hearing required to determine appropriate orders.