The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Tonya Martin over the dismissal of her application for judicial review of her removal from the Tús Programme. It upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the decision was made by the Tolka Area Partnership, not the Minister for Social Protection, and was a private law decision that could not be challenged by judicial review.
Martin had sought to quash the Partnership’s decision of 8 March 2016 to remove her from the programme after an incident on 25 February. The stated misconduct allegations included violent or threatening behaviour and malicious mischief. The judgment records that she denied the allegations at a disciplinary meeting on 29 February and was asked to provide a written account.
A resumed meeting was set for 7 March. Martin arrived five minutes late and was not allowed to take part, although she had prepared a written account. The meeting proceeded in her absence. The Partnership’s dismissal letter said she could appeal within three working days. Martin said she asked her supervisor for more time to appeal, but the request was refused. The Partnership later said her employment would cease on 18 March.
Separately, the Department disqualified Martin from Jobseeker’s Allowance for nine weeks on the ground that she had lost her position through her own misconduct. She appealed that decision to the social welfare appeals office, which dismissed the appeal on 6 July 2016. The Court of Appeal noted that the Minister’s benefit disqualification decision was distinct from the Partnership’s removal decision; the proceedings before it sought to challenge the latter.
Martin argued that Tús was a government programme funded and overseen by the Minister, and that the Partnership acted on the Minister’s behalf. The Court accepted that the scheme was a government initiative and was funded by the Minister, but held those connections did not make the Partnership the Minister’s agent for the dismissal decision. Martin’s employment contract was with the Partnership, which made the decision to remove her.
The Court also upheld the conclusion that the Partnership’s decision was not amenable to judicial review, even if the Partnership had been named as a respondent. It did not decide whether the disciplinary process was fair. The judgment records that the High Court made no finding on those complaints, and the appeal concerned whether the Minister was responsible for the decision and whether it could be reviewed in these proceedings. The Court found no error in the High Court’s reasoning and dismissed the appeal.