AM v Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment & ors

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 660
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:20 Nov 2024
Judge:O’Donnell B.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Employer, Employment, Equal Treatment (Principle of), Labour market access, Reception Conditions (Material)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bb0aaab1-149e-4eb8-952d-578c4d6b3267/2024_IEHC_660.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was an international protection applicant in Ireland with a professional background in pharmacy and healthcare management. The applicant applied for and was granted a labour market access permission. Under Regulation 11(9)(a) of the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2018, international protection applicants are not permitted to enter employment in the public sector. The applicant alleged that this … Read More

Principles:The restriction on access to employment in the public sector for international protection applicants is sufficiently justified and proportionate to the public interest.
Go Back

Yoon v Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 548
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:18 Sep 2024
Judge:O’Donnell B.
Category:Employment
Keywords:Employer, Employment, Employment Permit
Country of Origin:Republic of Korea
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f13c6568-21cd-4a00-afcf-e9cebed48869/2024_IEHC_548.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant lived in Ireland initially as a student and then on a Working Holiday Authorisation, during which time she worked as a tattoo artist. She applied for a General Employment Permit to take up a permanent position as a tattoo artist. The application was refused because the position was considered to fall on the ineligible occupations list, under … Read More

Principles:When considering whether an occupation that is not explicitly listed on the ineligible occupations list, the decision maker must provide adequate reasons and consider the exercise of discretion in the case.
Go Back

Hussein v Labour Court

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:The Labour Court
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2015] IESC 58
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:25 Jun 2015
Judge:Supreme Court (Murray, Hardiman and MacMenamin JJ.)
Category:Employment
Keywords:Employee, Employer, Employment, Employment (Illegal), Employment of LEGALLY resident third-country national (Illegal), Migrant Worker
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/45e62e1c-74c0-429a-9d82-ccbf464e3e89/2015_IESC_58_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Notice Party: Mohammad Younis Facts: The applicant was a restaurateur in Dublin, who employed his relative, the notice party, to carry out work in his restaurant pursuant to a contract of employment. Both of them were Pakistani nationals. The notice party brought claims against the applicant under inter alia the Organisation of Working Time Act 1995 and the National Minimum … Read More

Principles:

Where the Labour Court directs enforcement of a decision of a rights commissioner under such legislation as s. 28(8) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, as amended, or s. 31(1) of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, as amended, it is not open to the subject of such a direction to seek judicial review of it by mounting a collateral attack on the validity of the decision of the rights commissioner upon which it is based.

Should such a person be aggrieved with a decision of the rights commissioner, the correct procedure is to appeal it to the relevant forum or to seek judicial review of it.

It is not open to the High Court in judicial review to make a new finding of fact on the merits for the purpose of determining whether the original decision was right or wrong or should be upheld.

Go Back

Ogieriakhi v Minister for Justice and Others (No. 2)

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General and An Post
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 582
Nature of Proceedings:First instance
Judgment Date/s:22 Dec 2014
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Employment, EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:Employee, Employer, Employment, EU Treaty Rights, First instance, Free Movement, Residence
Country of Origin:Nigeria / Ireland (naturalised Irish citizen)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/290f664d-7b03-492c-8bc9-421de9ab14a5/2014_IEHC_582_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The plaintiff was a naturalised Irish citizen of Nigerian origin. In October, 2007, he was dismissed from his employment as a postal sorter with An Post on the sole ground that he could not establish at the time to the satisfaction of his employer that he had the right to work in Ireland. In High Court proceedings for damages … Read More

Principles:

In order to bring a damages claim against a Member State like Ireland for breach of EU law under the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) 1991 decision in Francovich, the breach must be sufficiently serious. In deciding whether or not this is so, the court must determine whether or not the Member State concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion. In examining that question, the criteria which national courts may take into account include the degree of clarity and precision of the rule infringed. In general, any loss incurred as a result of a breach must be mitigated. Where loss has occurred due to breach of property rights, Francovich provides an adequate remedy and it is not necessary to compensate the injured party by reference to the property rights provisions of the Constitution of 1937. Nonetheless, recourse to other remedies, such as constitutional protection of the right to one’s good name, may be relevant and obtainable in a given case.

Go Back

Hussein v Labour Court & Anor

Respondent/Defendant:Labour Court & Anor
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:31 Aug 2012
Judge:Hogan J
Category:Employment
Keywords:Employee, Employer, Employment, Employment (Illegal), Employment of ILLEGALLY resident third-country national (Illegal), Exploitation, Foreigner, Immigration (Illegal), Migrant (Illegally resident / staying), Migrant Worker, Migration (Exploitative), Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/3f2a0cfdd0d10ccd80257a6b004e2e1b
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant, Mr Hussein, and the notice party, Mr Younis are Pakistani nationals and cousins. In 2002, Mr Hussein, who operates a restaurant in Ireland, recruited his cousin to work as a Tandoori chef. Mr Younis maintained that he was required to work seven days a week with no holidays, that he was paid what amounted to pocket money … Read More

Principles:

Neither the Rights Commissioner nor the Labour Court can lawfully entertain an application for relief in respect of an employment contract that is substantively illegal for want of a work permit. Undocumented migrant workers do not benefit from employment legislation, even where they are not responsible for their unlawful status.

Go Back