AB v Down District Council [2012] NICA 60 (27 June 2012)

AB v Down District Council [2012] NICA 60 (27 June 2012)

Article 6 ECHR was not engaged in the appellant's disciplinary proceedings because the outcome, even if unfavourable, would not be dispositive of his civil right to practice as a lifeguard nor would it have a substantial or profound influence on that right. The proceedings only determined his contractual right to remain in employment with the Council, not his general right to work as a lifeguard. The refusal to allow legal representation did not breach Article 6.

Citation
[2012] NICA 60
Parties
Appellant: AB; Respondent: Down District Council
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
27 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court (treacy J) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Right to Legal Representation, Article 6 ECHR, Disability Discrimination, Judicial Review
Employment Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Disciplinary Proceedings Right to Legal Representation Article 6 ECHR Disability Discrimination Judicial Review

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Appellant

Down District Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court (treacy J) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights applies to internal disciplinary proceedings of a public sector employer
  2. 2 Whether refusal to allow legal representation at a disciplinary hearing breaches Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary proceedings are dispositive of the appellant's civil right to practice his profession

Ratio Decidendi

Article 6 ECHR was not engaged in the appellant's disciplinary proceedings because the outcome, even if unfavourable, would not be dispositive of his civil right to practice as a lifeguard nor would it have a substantial or profound influence on that right. The proceedings only determined his contractual right to remain in employment with the Council, not his general right to work as a lifeguard. The refusal to allow legal representation did not breach Article 6.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed