Supreme Court reverses Tribunal for exceeding jurisdiction by treating prior High Court ruling as binding fact finding on employment status.

THE SUPREME COURT

[Appeal No. 86/2011]

MacMenamin J.

Laffoy J.

Charleton J.

BETWEEN:

JOHN BARRY, CONOR O’BRIEN, MARY O’CONNOR, MICHAEL SPRAT AND CIARAN DOLAN

APPELLANTS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE & FOOD

RESPONDENTS

Judgment of Mr. Justice John MacMenamin dated the 16th day of July, 2015

1. I too would reverse the High Court judgment and order. I adopt the narrative of events set out in Charleton J.’s judgment. I agree

with the order which both he and Laffoy J. propose.

2. The Employment Appeals Tribunal erred in concluding that an earlier judgment, delivered in this case by Edwards J. in the High

Court, directed the Tribunal to find, as a matter of fact and law, that the appellants were self-employed, and had never been

employed by the Minister.

3. In proceeding on this misconception, the Tribunal acted outside the scope of its statutory power as outlined in Charleton J.’s

judgment.

4. It was for the Employment Appeals Tribunal itself to determine, on the facts, whether or not an employment relationship existed

between the parties. It follows, therefore, that the Tribunal erred in concluding that Edward J’s High Court ruling required it to make a

finding in a particular way. In so concluding, it fell into error. It also follows that Hedigan J. erred and his judgment should be set

aside. Thus, the matter should be remitted to the Employment Appeals Tribunal to be determined in accordance with its jurisdiction.

That this course is necessary is profoundly unfortunate. This case has had a very long duration. It is to be hoped that, ultimately, the

matter can achieve finality on remittal.

Management of the Matter As Remitted

5. I would suggest the following course of action might be adopted before the reconstituted Tribunal:

(a) That the parties prepare an issue paper identifying the questions now to be determined by the Tribunal. This issue

paper should be no more than two A4 pages. It shall be submitted to the Tribunal:

(b) That the parties prepare written submissions of no more than fifteen A4 pages. These should address, in sequence,

the agreed issues as identified in the issue paper. The sequencing and timing of these submissions are a matter for the

Tribunal.

(c) The Tribunal may, thereafter, apportion such time, as may appear to it appropriate, for oral submissions. I note the

parties accept that the evidence which has already been heard, may now be accepted by the Tribunal on foot of the

transcript. It will be necessary to refer to those transcripts to assist the Tribunal panel now charged with finally

concluding the matter.

(d) In the event that the parties disagree in relation to the issues, I would suggest that the Tribunal itself should receive

a proposed issue paper from both sides, and should thereafter prepare its own issue paper, identifying the issues which, in

turn, should be the subject of written submissions in the sequence therein set out.