The High Court has refused a civilian driver’s application for an interlocutory injunction requiring his re-engagement by An Garda Síochána, holding that the statutory process for his age-discrimination complaint had not been undermined by the employer’s appeal.
Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy said on 14 February 2025 that he was not persuaded the High Court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction in aid of the claim before the Labour Court. Even if an exceptional jurisdiction existed, he was not satisfied that this was such a case. He refused the driver’s application and proposed discharging an interim injunction made on 30 January. That interim order was to remain in place until final orders were made; the judge listed the matter for 26 February to finalise those orders and address costs.
The driver was required to retire at 70 in March 2023 under the terms of his employment. In October 2024, a Workplace Relations Commission adjudication officer found he had been discriminated against on age grounds, concluding that mandatory retirement operated unduly harshly in his circumstances. The officer ordered that he be re-engaged for a further three years, treated as pensionable service. The Commissioner appealed that decision to the Labour Court, which hears the complaint afresh. The Commissioner did not re-engage him.
The driver argued that the WRC order should take effect while the appeal was pending, and that he should be allowed to return to work. He also argued that the lack of interim relief through the WRC or Labour Court process denied him an effective remedy under EU and constitutional law. He said the appeal could take years and that his age might prevent him benefiting from a later re-engagement order.
The defendants argued that the High Court could not decide the statutory discrimination claim or grant interim relief in support of it. The judge agreed that the discrimination claim was for the statutory process, first the WRC and then the Labour Court, and said he would not assess the claim’s merits. He stressed that this did not reflect on its strength before the Labour Court.
The judgment said a WRC order under appeal is not enforceable through the District Court under the statutory scheme and is not self-executing. An injunction giving effect to the appealed order would, in the judge’s view, alter rather than supplement that scheme. He also found insufficient evidence that the process would leave the driver unable to benefit from any later award, or that the statutory remedy was inadequate. He therefore did not address the balance of justice or the defendants’ other discretionary arguments.