The High Court has refused to quash a €26,000 employment award to Maureen Stewart, rejecting a judicial review application by Capital Food Emporium (Holdings) Limited, formerly Capital Food Emporium Limited. Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 15 December 2016.
The challenge concerned a Rights Commissioner recommendation made in September 2012 and an Employment Appeals Tribunal determination in October 2015. The recommendation followed a hearing at which Stewart attended but the employer and its representative did not. The Rights Commissioner found, on Stewart’s uncontested evidence, that she had been constructively dismissed and recommended €26,000 compensation. The commissioner had satisfied himself that notice of the hearing was sent to the employer’s representative and had not been returned.
The employer initially sought another hearing, then appealed the recommendation to the Tribunal. It later withdrew that appeal. After the Rights Commissioner corrected the employer’s name in the recommendation to Capital Food Emporium Limited, the Tribunal held an implementation hearing. It determined that the employer should pay €26,000, noting that the employer had been notified of the correction and had chosen not to pursue its appeal.
The company then sought judicial review, asking the High Court to quash both decisions and declare that the commissioner and Tribunal had acted beyond their powers or breached natural or constitutional justice. It argued, among other matters, that the original complaint named other parties and that the employer had not received notice of the Rights Commissioner hearing.
Justice Barrett found that the company had repeatedly acknowledged it was the employer concerned: its representative sought a fresh hearing after the recommendation and lodged an appeal on the company’s behalf. The judge said the commissioner was entitled to proceed after being satisfied that hearing notice had been sent; there was no obligation to telephone the representative. He also found that the statutory power to correct an employer’s name applied and that the company had been given an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal’s role at the implementation hearing was limited to checking whether the statutory conditions for implementing the recommendation were met. The High Court found no evidence that it had exceeded those limits. The judge also pointed to the company’s substantial delay in bringing judicial review proceedings and the absence of a convincing explanation.
The court declined to grant any of the reliefs sought. This judgment determined the judicial review application; it did not rehear the underlying constructive dismissal claim.