Garda Representative Association & anor v Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform

Factual and Procedural Background

On 31 March 2014 new statutory regulations altered the public-sector sick-leave scheme and applied it to members of The Police Force. The professional body that represents members of that force (“Appellants”) commenced judicial-review proceedings challenging the regulations on several public-law grounds. The High Court rejected the challenge, and the Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted on limited issues. After case-management refinement the Supreme Court heard a further appeal, which forms the subject of this judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a governmental decision that detrimentally affects existing employment entitlements of public servants requires prior consultation or other procedural fairness.
2. Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation can arise in the context of such employment measures.
3. If a legitimate expectation can arise, whether the Government may lawfully resile from it without consequences.
4. Whether detrimental reliance is a necessary element of any legitimate-expectation claim in this context.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The regulations breached a legitimate expectation that The Police Force would be consulted before any adverse change to sick-leave terms.
• Failure to consult violated principles of fair procedures owed to the Appellants.
• The Respondent took irrelevant considerations into account and ignored relevant ones when deciding to include The Police Force.
• The Respondent exceeded statutory powers under the governing Act and produced incoherent regulations.

Respondent's Arguments

• The 2013 enabling legislation authorised the Respondent to make sick-leave regulations “notwithstanding” any other statutory or non-statutory expectation, thereby displacing consultation duties.
• No clear promise or representation capable of generating a legitimate expectation was ever made to the Appellants.
• Even if a consultation duty could arise, extensive engagement over twenty months satisfied any such requirement.
• The regulations are a form of delegated legislation of general application; therefore, constitutional or natural-justice hearing rights do not attach.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court, per Judge Clarke, first analysed the statutory framework. The earlier 2005 Act required the Minister for Justice to circulate draft regulations to police associations, but the later 2013 Act empowered the Respondent to introduce sick-leave regulations “notwithstanding any other Act.” Accordingly, no statutory duty to consult survived once the Respondent acted under the 2013 Act.

Turning to constitutional and common-law principles, the Court distinguished between delegated legislation of broad application and administrative decisions affecting identified individuals. Delegated legislative measures—such as the sick-leave regulations, which applied across the entire public service—do not attract fair-hearing requirements. The Court also rejected the Appellants’ claim of legitimate expectation, holding that:

• No clear promise or representation of consultation was established under the Glencar criteria.
• Section 58C of the 2013 Act expressly disapplied any expectation.
• Even assuming a general expectation could arise, the extensive engagement over twenty months satisfied it.

Finally, the Court noted that any broader consultation obligation that might theoretically arise from the constrained industrial-relations position of police officers was, on the facts, amply met: the Appellants had multiple opportunities to present views, and those views were considered before the regulations were finalised.

Holding and Implications

Appeal DISMISSED.

The regulations altering sick-leave entitlements remain in force and apply to members of The Police Force. The decision confirms that, where Parliament confers broad delegated-legislative power and expressly overrides other statutory schemes, courts will not imply a consultation duty. No new precedent was set regarding legitimate expectation; instead, existing principles were reaffirmed.