- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Adeyanju v Workplace Relations Commission and Anor (Approved) (Rev1)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging a direction by the Workplace Relations Commission (“Respondent”) that interrelated employment complaints and industrial-relations disputes be heard otherwise than in public. [1][2]
The proceedings before the Respondent included statutory complaints under the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and two disputes under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. [3][4]
Following an oral direction at a hearing on 15 April 2025, the Applicant commenced judicial review proceedings on 26 May 2025. Leave was granted on 23 June 2025, and the Employer was joined as a notice party. Neither the Respondent nor the Employer opposed the proceedings. [5][6]
The High Court quashed the impugned direction and subsequently reconsidered, and rejected, a proposed declaration concerning identification requirements for public access to hearings. [7][8][9]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the adjudication officer lawfully determined that the statutory complaints under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 should be heard otherwise than in public because of their factual overlap with private industrial-relations disputes. [10][11][12]
- Whether the reasons given for that determination adequately identified the special circumstances and explained why a more limited measure would not suffice. [13][14][15]
- Whether the Court should grant a declaration concerning alleged personal-information or identification requirements for persons attending a Respondent hearing. [16][17]
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group v. An Bord Pleanála [2024] IESC 4 | The applicant retains the burden of persuading the High Court that judicial review should be exercised, regardless of the other parties’ positions. | The Court applied this principle despite the Respondent and Employer not opposing the proceedings. [18] |
| Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer [2021] IESC 24, [2022] 1 IR 421 | Workplace Relations Act adjudication involves limited judicial functions and must comply with independence, impartiality, fairness and openness; public hearings are central to the administration of justice. | The Court treated public hearings as the statutory and constitutional norm from which departures require justification. [19][20] |
| Gilchrist v. Sunday Newspapers Ltd [2017] IESC 18, [2017] 2 IR 284 | Exceptions to public hearings must be strictly construed, both as to the circumstances justifying them and the extent of the departure. | The Court required consideration of whether exclusion from the entire hearing was necessary or whether a more limited measure would suffice. [13][14] |
| Connelly v. An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31, [2021] 2 IR 752, [2018] 2 ILRM 453 | Reasons must explain the decision sufficiently to enable affected persons to understand it and courts to exercise appellate or supervisory jurisdiction. | The Court held that the Respondent’s explanation was inadequate because it did not disclose the nature and extent of the alleged overlap or justify the complete exclusion of the public. [21][22][23] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Section 41(13) establishes public hearings as the default for proceedings under that section. A departure requires a determination that special circumstances exist, and the reference to “part thereof” permits a proportionate, limited restriction. [24][11]
The private investigation requirement applicable to the Industrial Relations Act disputes did not automatically displace the public-hearing requirement applicable to the statutory complaints. The two statutory regimes had to be considered separately, even though the matters were factually interrelated. [25][26]
The adjudication officer could have considered separating the complaints and disputes, or restricting publicity only in relation to affected parts. However, the reasons merely referred to “some overlap in the factual matrix” and did not identify the overlapping evidence or issues. [27][15]
The reasons also failed to explain why the matters could not fairly or practicably be treated separately, why a public hearing would compromise the integrity of the private disputes, or why a lesser protective measure would not suffice. The Court therefore could not be satisfied that section 41(13) had been correctly understood and applied. [15][23]
The Court declined to grant a declaration concerning alleged access and identification requirements. The evidence did not establish what information was requested, whether it was recorded or retained, who requested it, or whether it was connected with the particular hearing. [17][28][29]
Determining that issue would also have raised fair-procedure concerns because the Respondent had not reasonably anticipated that its access arrangements would be challenged at the substantive hearing and had not been given a proper opportunity to present evidence. [30][31]
The Court left unresolved the remaining grounds, including issues concerning witness summonses, alleged apprehended bias, late submissions, and wider constitutional and European Union law arguments. [32]
Holding and Implications
Certiorari was ordered, quashing the direction insofar as it required the statutory complaints under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 to be conducted otherwise than in public. [8]
The underlying matters were proposed to be remitted to the Respondent for determination by a different adjudication officer. The industrial-relations disputes were to remain private under section 13(8), while any departure from public hearings for the statutory complaints would require identified special circumstances, proportionality, and intelligible reasons. [33][34]
No declaration was made concerning identification or sign-in arrangements, and the judgment expressed no concluded view on their compatibility with open justice. There was no order as to costs. [35][9][36]
Alert