This was an appeal brought by the Minister for Education and Skills, and the Attorney General. The Minister contended that the High Court judge had erroneously found that the Minister had acted ultra vires in terminating certain allowances payable to the applicants. The Minister also contended that this decision was reached in breach of fair procedures.

The applicants were both regarded as statutory officers whose offices and entitlements were governed by the Vocational Education Acts 1930- 2001. However, during the economic crisis the government decided to re-organise the vocational education sector and reduced 33 VECs to 16 Educational Training Boards ("ETBs"). This reform potentially impacted on the applicants' remuneration and status. The applicants were granted leave to seek judicial review in order to challenge this proposed reform.

The applicants had been previously paid a Transport Liaison Officers Allowance ("TLOA") in recognition of the administrative burden placed on them as a result of the school transport system. The rationale for this payment had disappeared over time as this work was performed by others but nonetheless amounted to a significant part of their remuneration packages. Prior to the reform it was recommended that the payment should cease for new entrants and that the role of TLOA would terminate. The applicants were informed that their role as TLOAs would cease, along with their additional payments for same, which the applicants sought to challenge by way of judicial review.  The applicants also sought additional reliefs but their case was essentially reduced to three fundamental issues: the legality of the categorisation to be applied to the new ETBs, whether the Department of Education had complied with the Croke Park Agreement 2009, and the lawfulness of the termination of the TLOA.

The determination of the High Court was not appealed in respect of the first two issues, but the third issue was. The High Court judge had pointed out that the validity of the termination of the TLOA must be governed by legal considerations. The High Court judge had also concluded that the Minister had no power to terminate the TLOA payments and found their actions unlawful. The Minister specially appealed this finding alleging that this issue was never argued and that it was not open to the High Court to reach a conclusion on an issue that was not before it.

The Court stated that there was no doubt that there were numerous instances in the pleadings, affidavits, submissions etc which referred to the "unlawful" and "ultra vires" decision to terminate the TLOA. However, the Court found that there was no specific claim that the Minister had no power to terminate the TLOA and concluded that there was a departure from fair procedure. The Court emphasised that under the Rules of the Superior Courts, and per fair procedures, a party must be entitled to know the precise case that is being pleaded against them.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that the judgment and order of the High Court concerning the 'third issue', namely the alleged ultra vires acts, alone be remitted back to the High Court for re-argument. They noted that it will be necessary to file an amended statement of grounds pleading the specific issue of vires explicitly, but no other issue may be revisited or reopened. Notably, this Order referred to the second applicant only as the first named applicant had passed away and the proceedings would have to be reconstituted to reflect same.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/2cc98bd20c8d47988025832b003c99f6?OpenDocument