Kelly v Trinity College Dublin | |
---|---|
Court | Supreme Court of Ireland |
Full case name | Patrick Kelly v The Visitors of the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin |
Decided | December 14, 2007 |
Citation(s) | Kelly v TCD [2007] IESC 61 (14 December 2007), Supreme Court (Ireland) |
Case history | |
Appealed from | High Court |
Case opinions | |
The Irish Supreme Court reviewed and restated the law on objective bias in Ireland | |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Fennelly J., Macken J., Finnegan J. |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Fennelly, J. |
Concurrence | Macken J.; Finnegan J |
Keywords | |
Bias; Supreme Court; Disciplinary Tribunal |
Kelly v Trinity College Dublin [2007] IESC 61; [2007] 12 JIC 1411; is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that former employments or associations are insufficient, in the absence of other evidence, to disqualify a person from participating in disciplinary or similar tribunals related to that former employment. [1]
Kelly (a student of Trinity College Dublin at the time) made a complaint of bullying against a member of staff. Following internal investigations which rejected his complaint, Kelly appealed to the Visitors to Trinity College Dublin [2] ("Visitors" are part of the oversight structure of Trinity College Dublin). [3] The Visitors decided that they had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
Kelly sought to apply for the judicial review of this decision of the Visitors on the basis of the "composition of the Visitors and alleges bias". [4] The application for judicial review was dismissed in the High Court (Abbot J) and was appealed directly to the Supreme Court pursuant to Order 58, Rule 13 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. [5]
Amongst the grounds on which judicial review was sought was that one of the Visitors, Professor Sagarra, was disqualified from the role by reason of objective bias as she had previously been employed by the university and had become a Pro-Chancellor of the university in 1999. [4] Kelly claimed on Professor Sagarra's appointment as Pro-Chancellor she had sworn that she would "uphold the best interests of the University" [4] and so by reason of her career and background, Professor Sagarra would be naturally biased in favour of the university. In making the claim of objective bias, Kelly relied on the test set out by Keane CJ in
He relied on Orange Communications Ltd. v. Director of Telecoms (No. 2) [2000] IESC 79; [2000] 4 IR 159 in which Keane C.J. defined objective bias as the apprehension "that the decision will be set aside on the ground of objective bias where there is a reasonable apprehension or suspicion that the decision maker might have been biased, i.e. where it is found that, although there was no actual bias, there is an appearance of bias." [6]
Fennelly J delivered the sole written judgment, with whom the other judges agreed.
The Supreme Court held that Kelly had not established an arguable case of objective bias against the decision of Professor Sagarra in her role as a Visitor. Noting that "former employments or association" [4] are not sufficient in and of themselves to disqualify someone from participating in a disciplinary or similar tribunal and that Professor Sagarra's position as Pro-Chancellor did not undermine her ability to bring a "fresh and independent mind" [4] to the matters before the Visitors, the Supreme Court cautioned against attempting to list the factors that may or may not give rise to a risk of bias. Citing from the English Court of Appeal case, Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] 2 WLR 870; [2000] QB 451, the Supreme Court noted that "[e]verything will depend on the facts" [7]
The Supreme Court therefore held that it would not be a justified step to disqualify an otherwise qualified person from performing an adjudicative role merely because of that person's previous profession, social links or background. [4]
During the hearing Kelly also objected to the presence of Macken J on the Supreme Court bench for this case on the basis that Macken J was a graduate of Trinity College Dublin and had been a law lecturer there. This fact was raised by the judges prior to the hearing, but it was only after the hearing had commenced that Kelly raised an objection. The Supreme Court rejected this objection on the basis that past associations by themselves are not sufficient to establish objective bias and do not disqualify judges from performing their professional duties. [5]
This case was subsequently cited with approval in O'Reilly v Lee [2008] IESC 21, [2008] 4 IR 269 where the Supreme Court in this case to establish that the fact that the President of the High Court appoints certain persons to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal does not, of itself, render the President of the High Court objectively biased. It was also cited with approval in R.V. (A Minor Suing by his Mother and Next Friend K.M.) v Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science, James Hayes, Nora Mary O'Riordan and Elaine Collins (Respondents) and The Board of Management of a School (Notice Party) [2019] IEHC 595 and O'Ceallaigh v An Bord Altranais [2011] IESC 50.
In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly".
Fidelma Nora Macken SC is a retired Irish judge who served as a Judge of the Supreme Court from 2005 to 2012, a Judge of the High Court from 1998 to 1999 and between 2004 and 2005 and a Judge of the European Court of Justice from 1999 to 2004.
Christopher Palles, was an Irish barrister, Solicitor-General, Attorney-General and a judge for over 40 years. His biographer V.T.H. Delany describes him as "the greatest of the Irish judges". He served as the last Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer from 1874 until his retirement from the bench in 1916.
Sir Stephen Sedley is a British lawyer. He worked as a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales from 1999 to 2011 and is currently a visiting professor at the University of Oxford.
Bias is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law which a person can rely upon to challenge the judgment of a court or tribunal, or a public authority's action or decision. There are three forms of bias, namely, actual, imputed and apparent bias.
Procedural impropriety in Singapore administrative law is one of the three broad categories of judicial review, the other two being illegality and irrationality. A public authority commits procedural impropriety if it fails to properly observe either statutory procedural requirements, or common law rules of natural justice and fairness.
Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni was a 2006 administrative law judgment in which the High Court of Singapore quashed a decision made by the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society of Singapore against a lawyer, Alan Shankar s/o Anant Kulkarni. The Disciplinary Committee had found Shankar, who was a solicitor, guilty of grossly improper misconduct under the Legal Profession Act. Shankar applied to the High Court for judicial review on the ground that the Committee's ruling was affected by apparent bias.
Iseult Pauline Mary O'Malley is an Irish judge who has served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland since October 2015. She previously served as a Judge of the High Court from 2012 to 2015.
Mary Irvine is an Irish judge who is the President of the Irish High Court, the first woman appointed to that role. She first was a Judge of the High Court between 2007 to 2014. She was a Judge of the Court of Appeal from 2014 to 2019 and served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland from May 2019 until becoming President of the High Court on 18 June 2020. She is an ex officio member of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.
R v SS for Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning judicial review.
In the case of Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3; [2010] 2 IR 701; [2011] 2 ILRM 157, the Supreme Court of Ireland found that the proportionality test should be used when reviewing administrative actions that implicate fundamental rights protected by both the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. While the case concerned an application for judicial review of an asylum decision, the decision was described as carrying “implications for the whole body of Irish administrative law”.
Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which it was decided that the earliest opportunity to apply for a review of a decision made by the court arises within the three-month period after the decision is made, and that courts have no power to extend that time. The Court held that a key feature of both European law and court rules is the policy of urgency.
Bank of Ireland v O'Donnell & ors[2015] IESC 90 is an Irish Supreme Court case that centred around whether the appellants had any right or capacity to bring a motion before the court. They wanted to seek an order of a stay on Mr Justice McGovern's order dated 24 July 2014. In their appeal, they referred to the principle of objective bias and Mr Justice McGovern's refusal to recuse himself. The Supreme Court rejected the application for a stay and held that the law regarding objective bias was clearly stated in the lower court.
N.V.H. v Minister for Justice & Equality [2017] IESC 35 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a challenge to the absolute prohibition on employment of asylum seekers contained in Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 and held it to be contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.
Director of Corporate Enforcement v Barry Seymour[2011] IESC 45; [2013] 1 IR 82, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that commercial misjudgement was not in itself sufficient to justify disqualification as a company director under the Companies Act 1990.
SIAC Construction Ltd v The County Council of the County of Mayo [2002] IESC 39, [2002] 3 IR 148 was a case in which the Supreme Court of Ireland ruled that, in exercising its margin of discretion in the area of public procurement, a tender awarding authority is required to respect the general principles of equality, transparency and objectivity.
Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.
Gerald J.P. Stephens v. Paul Flynn Ltd.[2008] IESC 4; [2008] 4 IR 31 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, absent special circumstances, a party's failure to deliver a statement of claim within a period of twenty months is inexcusable and will justify dismissal of the litigation.
Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd [2000] IESC 15; [2000] 4 IR 412 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the court considered the test for objective bias in Ireland. During this case the Supreme Court considered:
Sir Michael John Fordham,, styled The Hon. Mr Justice Fordham, is a judge of the High Court of England and Wales assigned to the Queen's Bench Division. He was appointed as a Justice of the High Court on 13 January 2020.