In this case the Applicant, Jurij Bondarenko, sought an order of certiorari quashing a decision made by the Respondent in which they declined to make an order in favour of the Applicant. The Applicant had sought reinstatement to his employment with Keegan Quarries Limited (the notice party).

The Applicant sought claims against the Respondent pursuant to the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, and other Employment law statutes. Simultaneously, the Applicant also brought the same claims against another company, Keegan Precast Limited, a company which may loosely be described as a sister company of the notice party. The notice party maintains that it was originally the employer of the applicant, but that the activities of the notice party were transferred to Keegan Precast in 2011.  The Applicant sought the claims against both companies in order to avoid any uncertainty as to the identity of his employer.

After the Rights Commissioner found in favour of the Applicant, Keegan Precast lodged an appeal in which the Labour Court affirmed the decision of the Rights Commissioner in his finding that the Applicant had been unfairly dismissed but concluded that reinstatement was no longer feasible.

The Applicant submitted that the Respondent did not have jurisdiction to enter into the kind of inquiry which it did and that in refusing to make a determination to the same effect as the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner, it erred in law and acted ultra vires. It was submitted that it took into account considerations which were irrelevant to the decision.

In his judgment, Mr. Justice Binchy found that, although the Respondent acted ultra vires, he refused the order for certiorari sought by the applicant along with  the other reliefs sought by the Applicant, as to do so would be to facilitate the Applicant recovering damages twice from a single dismissal from employment.

Justice Binchy also added that, "If it seemed unfair that this left the Applicant with the lesser of two remedies, i.e. the compensation for unfair dismissal determined by the Labour Court, as distinct from an order requiring his reinstatement, which may have a greater financial value, then the applicant needed to bear in mind that he could have chosen to apply to enforce the latter and more substantial remedy as against the notice party much earlier than he did, and well in advance of the hearing before the Labour Court."
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/2064533bbde7e6f580258447002fef49?OpenDocument