The High Court dismissed Kevin Martin’s judicial review challenge to the Data Protection Commissioner’s refusal to hold an oral hearing into his complaint against St. Raphael’s Garda Credit Union. The court found the challenge moot because the Commissioner had issued a formal statutory decision on the complaint after the judicial review application was lodged. It also concluded that the Commissioner had no power or obligation to hold an oral hearing during the investigation.
Martin’s complaint alleged that a credit union representative disclosed details of his loans to his father during a visit to his father’s home in 2012. The representative and the credit union denied that any financial information was discussed. The Commissioner’s office investigated, including seeking information about the visit and checking whether a relevant telephone recording existed. It could not resolve the conflicting accounts.
An investigating officer wrote on 16 February 2015 that the office could not form a definitive opinion without documentary evidence and rejected a request for an oral hearing. Martin sought judicial review of that letter. On 23 March 2015, the Commissioner issued a formal decision under the Data Protection Acts. She said the alleged verbal disclosure could not be proved or disproved and that she was unable to uphold the complaint. The decision notified Martin of a right to appeal to the Circuit Court within 21 days of receiving it.
The court said the February letter was not itself the Commissioner’s statutory decision. Because the March decision had been made and was not challenged in the judicial review proceedings, an order requiring an oral hearing would have served no purpose. The court said the process had ended with the formal decision, and found the challenge to the February letter moot. It did not decide the case on the basis of delay or alleged material non-disclosure when an extension of time was sought.
Considering the broader legal question in case it was wrong about mootness, the court held that neither the Data Protection Acts nor the EU directive empowered or required the Commissioner to conduct oral hearings. It said the statutory investigation powers did not include the significant additional powers and safeguards needed to compel witnesses, take evidence on oath or provide for cross-examination. The court also distinguished legislation governing the Financial Services Ombudsman, which expressly provided for such procedures.
The judgment said Martin could have appealed the Commissioner’s March decision to the Circuit Court. On such an appeal, the Circuit Court could join the credit union and direct that oral evidence be heard to resolve the disputed facts. The High Court dismissed the proceedings without deciding Martin’s remaining claims for relief.