The High Court has refused an application by Olga Bennett and Mairead Marron for discovery of documents relating to the decision to terminate their contracts as assistant classifiers.
The applicants were appointed as assistant film censors in the 1990s under contracts that could be ended on one month’s notice. Legislation later changed their titles to assistant classifiers. Other assistant classifiers were subsequently hired on fixed-term contracts.
In August 2016, the Minister for Justice and Equality gave the applicants notice that their contracts would end on 31 March 2017. The fixed-term assistant classifiers’ contracts also ended, and a competition was held for new assistant classifier roles. The applicants applied but were unsuccessful.
The Minister’s stated reason for ending the applicants’ contracts was advice that all assistant classifiers should be treated similarly, regardless of contract type. The applicants alleged that the Minister had decided to treat them like fixed-term staff to avoid the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003. The Minister denied that allegation.
In their judicial review proceedings, the applicants challenged the termination decision as arbitrary, irrational and perverse. The judgment records that they did not claim the stated reason was untrue or given in bad faith.
The application before Mr Justice Noonan concerned discovery. The applicants sought documents relating to the decision, generated between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2017. A separate category of documents was no longer being actively pursued.
The judge said discovery in judicial review is exceptional and must be relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the issues, as determined by the pleadings. He concluded that the applicants’ challenge was solely that the reason given was irrational. They had not challenged whether that reason was the true one.
On that basis, the judge said it was neither necessary nor appropriate to examine the considerations or thought processes behind the decision. He refused the discovery application, finding the applicants had not shown that the documents were necessary for fair disposal of the proceedings. The judgment addresses the discovery request; it does not decide the underlying challenge to the termination of the contracts.