The High Court has declined to determine preliminary legal questions in a former Air Corps pilot’s employment case, leaving the disputed issues for the trial of her action.
In a judgment delivered on 28 March 2025, Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy said the application to hold a preliminary trial should have been refused if it had been contested. He found that deciding the proposed questions would not materially shorten the substantive hearing, because the plaintiff’s claims about alleged victimisation and gender discrimination would still require evidence at trial.
The plaintiff, Amelia McKeown, is a qualified pilot and retired Defence Forces officer who was based at Casement Aerodrome. She resigned in June 2015 after being suspended from flying duties. She alleges the suspension followed a complaint that she was treated less favourably than male colleagues, and amounted to gender discrimination and victimisation. The defendants deny her claims and describe the action affecting her flying duties as a “withdrawal”.
McKeown seeks, among other relief, a declaration that the suspension was void and damages. The defendants argued that claims for statutory victimisation or discrimination redress must be brought through the Workplace Relations Commission or, where applicable, the Circuit Court. They accepted for the preliminary application that she had been employed under a contract and that she could pursue a contractual claim alleging victimisation or discrimination, while reserving the ability to dispute the claimed contractual entitlement at trial.
The judge said the first proposed question—whether the Employment Equality Act 1998 implied a gender equality clause into her contract and whether a contractual claim could be maintained—was not disputed on the positions taken for the application. The parties did not argue the proposed question about statutory time limits. A revised question about whether statutory redress procedures were exclusive raised a dispute, but the judge declined to decide it: it had been reframed during the hearing, the plaintiff had not had a proper opportunity to address it, and the issue could depend on evidence and might not arise at trial.
The judgment did not decide whether McKeown was victimised or discriminated against, whether her claim amounts to breach of an equality clause, or whether the defendants are liable. It also did not determine costs. The case was to be listed for mention on 10 April 2025 to address consequential orders, directions toward an early trial, and costs.