The High Court has refused an application to quash an Employment Appeals Tribunal decision dismissing a former Cork City Council rent collector’s unfair dismissal claim. It held that an error in the tribunal’s explanation of why door to door rent collection ended did not affect the basis of its decision.
The applicant had held the permanent rent collector post from 1979. After the council moved to end door to door collection, he disputed his proposed reassignment and said he had been left with no alternative but to accept an early retirement package. The tribunal heard evidence over five days and, in May 2006, found that he had terminated his own employment by declining a new position. It dismissed his unfair dismissal appeal and also rejected his redundancy and minimum notice claims, citing the financial package he had received.
The applicant sought judicial review, asking the High Court to quash the tribunal’s decision and remit the matter to a different division. He argued that the tribunal failed to summarise evidence from four council witnesses, relied on the doctrine of frustration without hearing submissions on it, and wrongly assumed legislation required the council to phase out rent collection.
The High Court rejected the complaint about the tribunal’s account of the evidence. It found the tribunal had set out clear factual findings and was not required to refer expressly to every witness or identify each piece of evidence relied upon.
The court accepted that the tribunal had incorrectly stated that legislation had made the rent collector post legally impossible. The Local Government Act 2001 permitted the council to alter employment terms; it did not require rent collection to end. But the High Court concluded the error was not material to the tribunal’s decision. The parties had proceeded on the basis that the role would be abolished, and the dispute concerned the timing of the change and the alternative work or retirement arrangements offered. The tribunal’s decision rested on the applicant declining the proposed new position.
As the legal error neither concerned a material issue nor led to the outcome, the court found no breach of natural justice and no basis to categorise the tribunal’s decision as perverse. It refused the relief sought. The judge made no finding on whether an alternative appeal remained available, noting that the council would not object to an appeal being lodged out of time and that any extension was for another court to decide.