The High Court has refused an interim injunction sought by two Assistant Classifiers who are challenging the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision to end their appointments. The ruling decides only the interlocutory application; it does not determine the underlying judicial review proceedings.
Mr Justice Max Barrett said on 5 May 2017 that Olga Bennett and Mairead Marron had not shown a strong enough case to obtain the relief sought under the test for an injunction that would have mandatory effects. Applying the judicial review criteria in Okunade, he said the greater risk of injustice lay in making the Minister undo actions that appeared valid at this stage, following an interlocutory hearing.
The applicants were appointed in the 1990s to the then office of Assistant Censor. The role later became Assistant Classifier at the Irish Film Classification Office. They said they had been treated as self-employed, but argued that they were in reality employees. They relied in part on the start of PAYE deductions in April 2016. The Minister maintained that they were office-holders and that their contracts could be ended on notice.
In August 2016, the Minister told them that all Assistant Classifier contracts would end on 31 March 2017 and that a new panel would be formed through the Public Appointments Service. The applicants applied to join it but were unsuccessful at interview. They alleged that the process was unfair and questioned why two Assistant Classifiers previously on fixed-term contracts succeeded. The Minister denied wrongdoing.
The applicants’ judicial review case raised issues including whether they were entitled to an identified reason for termination and a chance to make representations, whether their treatment breached a legitimate expectation, and whether the Minister could rely on treating all Assistant Classifiers similarly. The Minister disputed those claims. The judgment records the competing arguments; it does not decide the merits of the underlying challenge.
The applicants sought an interim order preventing termination of their offices, loss of emoluments, and certain changes to their work or appointments. The judge considered both the test for mandatory interlocutory injunctions and the judicial review approach. He concluded that, under either approach, the requested injunction should be refused. He also discussed alleged delay and acquiescence but said he did not need to reach a considered view on those issues.
The court therefore declined the interim relief. The judgment does not state that the judicial review itself was dismissed or resolve whether the applicants were employees or office-holders.