Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Protected disclosure rejected as repetitive without new information
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court dismisses an application for judicial review challenging the handling of a protected disclosure by a former labour inspector. The court found that the disclosure, which was the applicant's fourth, contained no new meaningful information compared to past reports and was therefore correctly closed as repetitive. The applicant argued that the Department for Enterprise Trade and Employment and the Office of the Protected Disclosure Commissioner acted improperly by not independently investigating his claims and by breaching confidentiality. However, both the Department and the Commissioner maintained that their actions were lawful. The court upheld the Department's decision to close the report and found no evidence of bias or irrationality in the Commissioner's decision to refer the matter to the Department's Secretary General.
Protected disclosure, judicial review, Department for Enterprise Trade and Employment, Office of the Protected Disclosure Commissioner, repetitive report, EU Directive 2019/1937, Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, confidentiality, nemo iudex in causa sua (no one is judge in their own case), natural justice, fair procedure, independent review, Kevin Healy BL, certiorari, curial deference, abuse of process.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
