The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by Tomasz Zalewski, restoring his challenge to provisions governing Workplace Relations Commission adjudications. The Court ruled that he had standing to pursue the challenge even though the decision on his claims had been quashed by agreement and the claims remitted to the WRC.
The case returns to the High Court. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the challenged provisions are constitutional, or whether any of Zalewski’s arguments will ultimately succeed.
Zalewski had been dismissed from his employment with Buywise Discount Store Limited in April 2016. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and for money he said was owed in lieu of notice. At an October 2016 WRC hearing, the adjudication officer accepted written submissions and documents, then adjourned the case because an employer witness was unavailable. No evidence was heard.
A further hearing was scheduled for December. Zalewski and his lawyers attended, but were told the adjudication officer had already issued a decision the previous week and that the scheduled hearing had been arranged in error. The written decision, dated 16 December 2016, dismissed both claims.
In judicial review proceedings, the respondents accepted that the decision could not stand. They consented to an order quashing it and remitting the complaints to the WRC for a hearing by a different adjudication officer. They argued that Zalewski could no longer pursue his constitutional claims because he had obtained the principal relief he sought.
The High Court held that he lacked standing to continue, reasoning that the new WRC hearing would be governed by published procedures that allowed parties to give evidence, call and question witnesses, and address legal points. It dismissed the remaining proceedings. Zalewski appealed.
The Supreme Court said the constitutional challenge was directed at the statutory scheme itself, including the allocation of claims to adjudication officers and features of the process set out in legislation. It was not confined to whether an individual officer might mishandle the new hearing. Because Zalewski’s claims remained to be determined under that scheme, the Court found he continued to face a real prospect of being affected by it.
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the part of the High Court order that found he lacked standing and dismissed the balance of the proceedings. It remitted the remaining judicial review case to the High Court. The ruling leaves the constitutional issues open for that court; it does not determine the merits of the challenge or the underlying employment claims.