Kelly v Gargan & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a civil servant, initiated judicial review proceedings arising from disputes related to his involvement in the Youth Wing of Company B (the Union), following his election as chairperson in June 2018. The existence and formal status of this Youth Wing were contested by the Respondents, who stated it was an informal group known as the Youth Network without a formal youth wing structure.

A serious conflict arose between the Applicant and the Notice Party, an official within the Youth Wing/Network, culminating in a written complaint made by the Notice Party to the Union's head office in December 2018. The complaint concerned alleged intimidating and injurious correspondence from the Applicant.

The complaint was processed under the Union’s disciplinary procedures, including investigation by an external official, a deliberative disciplinary committee hearing, and an appeal conducted by an external adjudicator. The disciplinary committee upheld the complaint and imposed a two-year debarment penalty on the Applicant from Union administration participation. The appeal confirmed this decision.

The Applicant then sought judicial review challenging the disciplinary process and decisions, asserting procedural irregularities and raising issues concerning the public law nature of the Union’s disciplinary procedures.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the disciplinary decision of the Union respondents is amenable to judicial review or constitutes a private law matter arising from contract.
2. Whether the Applicant’s membership rights in the Union carry a public law element sufficient to attract judicial review jurisdiction.
3. Whether there were procedural irregularities in the disciplinary and appeal processes sufficient to invalidate the decisions.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that no formal "complaint" existed under the Union’s disciplinary rules as defined by rule 27, paragraph 1.8, distinguishing disputes from complaints.
• He emphasized the public law aspect of the Union and its disciplinary procedures, asserting that the disciplinary meeting was held outside the prescribed time limits and that the charges were substantively different from those initially presented.
• The Applicant relied on established case law (Geoghegan principles) to argue that the Union’s disciplinary decision engages public law rights due to the statutory regulation of trade unions and the nature of his employment within public sector institutions.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents maintained that the issues raised are private law matters arising from the contractual relationship between the Applicant and the Union.
• They argued that there were no procedural deficiencies or, if any existed, they were immaterial to the outcome.
• The Respondents contended that the disciplinary rules and procedures are not based on statute nor dependent on legislative or governmental approval.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first considered the threshold question of justiciability, applying established principles from Geoghegan and related authorities. It evaluated whether the disciplinary decision arose from public law rights or was confined to private contractual rights.

The Court found that although the Union is subject to statutory regulation, this does not extend to confer public law rights on the Applicant regarding his membership or disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary rules were not enacted or dependent on statutory or governmental approval.

The Court rejected the Applicant’s analogy comparing his position to professionals exercising statutory functions (e.g., receivers or examiners), noting the absence of statutory protection or public law rights attaching to his membership.

Further, the Court relied on Becker to highlight that the nature of the employment relationship and disciplinary decisions in similar public sector contexts are private law matters, not amenable to judicial review.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Applicant’s claims do not engage public law and that the judicial review application is not justiciable.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the Applicant’s application for judicial review.

The decision means that the disciplinary actions taken by the Union against the Applicant stand and are not subject to judicial review. The Court clarified that no new precedent was established, reaffirming the boundary between public and private law in the context of trade union disciplinary procedures. The Applicant’s remedies remain within private law avenues rather than public law judicial review.