Summary Sentence:

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the Appellant's legal challenge against the WRC Adjudication Officer's ruling, which was based on the Appellant's behaviour in court.

Background:

The Appellant originally took a complaint against the Notice Party, Arthur Cox LLP, for unfair dismissal before an Adjudication Officer of the WRC. These complaints were dismissed by the Adjudication Officer during the course of the hearing because of the attempts by the Appellant and her mother to interrupt the hearing and prevent it from proceeding. The Appellant sought, and received leave for, judicial review proceedings which contended that the Adjudication Officer had acted in excess of their authority by conducting the hearing in the way they did, and that their decision to dismiss the Appellant’s complaints was also unlawful and ultra vires.

The judicial review proceedings of that hearing commenced before Bolger J. in the High Court, who encountered similar difficulties in the conduct of the proceedings as had the Adjudication Officer. The Appellant repeatedly interrupted the proceedings and attempted to re-agitate matters which had been already decided by the judge. In light of this behaviour, and after many attempts to continue the proceedings, the High Court dismissed the judicial review proceedings and awarded costs of the proceedings to the Respondent and Notice Party on a practitioner and client basis, which is much higher than is typically provided.

This decision was an appeal to the Court of Appeal of the decision of the High Court to dismiss the Appellant’s judicial review application and the refusal by Bolger J. to recuse herself from hearing the case. During the hearing before the Court of Appeal, the Appellant engaged in the same type of behaviour exhibited in the prior proceedings, and after attempting in vain to proceed, the Court concluded the oral hearing and decided the appeal before it on the basis of the written submissions and books of appeal provided by the parties to the Court.

Outcome:

The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, affirmed the decision of the High Court to dismiss the proceedings due to the conduct of the Appellant. The Court further remarked that the conduct of the Appellant was “appalling” and that the decision of the High Court to award costs on a practitioner and client basis to mark its displeasure with the Appellant’s conduct.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

A court or tribunal, including the WRC, has the power to adjourn and even dismiss proceedings if the party bringing them engages in way which undermines the ability of that decision maker to administer justice.

The full case is here:  
https://courts.ie/view/judgments/e64367f7-91c1-4af7-8d73-93b1fbc65841/55618985-441f-4d7d-acb3-ef9b3dcaad66/2024_IECA_105.pdf/pdf