The High Court has refused Thomas John Arkins permission to challenge Labour Court decisions dismissing his employment claims against Element Pictures Limited.
Mr Arkins had complained to the Workplace Relations Commission in April 2019 that he had been unfairly dismissed and denied minimum notice. The WRC rejected both complaints in May 2020. He appealed to the Labour Court, which dismissed them in June 2021.
Those first Labour Court decisions were later quashed by the High Court in March 2023 and sent back for reconsideration. A fresh Labour Court hearing took place in April 2024.
Element Pictures Limited argued that Arkins had never worked for the company. The Labour Court found that he had failed to establish that he had ever been employed or engaged by it in any capacity. It dismissed both complaints on that threshold issue without deciding broader questions about whether film production workers should be treated as employees or independent contractors.
Arkins then began a second judicial review challenge. Mr Justice Garrett Simons refused leave on June 5, 2025 and later issued written reasons.
The first reason was that Arkins had an adequate alternative remedy: both employment statutes provided a right of appeal to the High Court on a point of law. Judicial review is normally unavailable where such a statutory appeal can adequately address the complaint.
The court also found that the proposed grounds did not reach even the low threshold of an arguable judicial review case. The Labour Court had heard witnesses, considered company records and made a factual finding that Arkins had not established any work relationship with Element Pictures Limited. Nothing before the High Court showed that finding was irrational or unsupported by evidence.
Simons J expressly clarified that the decision does not establish that film production workers lack employment rights. The wider issues raised by Arkins about alleged bogus self-employment and the use of separate production companies were not decided by the Labour Court and therefore were not matters the High Court could determine in this judicial review.
No order for costs was made.