High Court reaffirms open justice principles in Workplace Relations Commission proceedings

At a glance

• The High Court confirmed that Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) employment rights hearings are presumed to be heard in public, and any departure from that position must be justified by 'special circumstances'.
• A decision to hear proceedings in private must be supported by clear reasons. An unexplained factual overlap between employment complaints and industrial relations disputes will not, by itself, justify excluding the public.
• The judgment reinforces the principles of open justice and transparent decision-making in WRC proceedings.

Background

In Adeyanju v Workplace Relations Commission [2026] IEHC 538, the High Court considered whether a WRC adjudication officer had provided sufficient reasons for directing that a number of employment rights complaints be heard in private.

The employee had brought several statutory employment complaints and two industrial relations disputes against the Chief State Solicitor’s Office. As the industrial relations disputes were required to be heard in private under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the adjudication officer directed that all matters would proceed in private on the basis that there was 'some overlap in the factual matrix' between the disputes and the statutory complaints. The employee challenged that decision by way of judicial review, arguing that the reasons given for departing from the default position of a public hearing were inadequate.  

Public hearings remain the default position

Section 41(13) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that WRC adjudication hearings must be conducted in public unless an adjudication officer determines that 'special circumstances' justify hearing all or part of the proceedings in private. The High Court reaffirmed that this creates a strong statutory presumption in favour of open justice. Any departure from that default position must be justified by reference to the particular circumstances of the case and must go no further than is necessary. The High Court also emphasised that the ability to hear only part of a case in private reflects a legislative intention that restrictions on public hearings should be proportionate and carefully tailored.

In reaching its decision, the High Court drew heavily on the Supreme Court's judgment in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer, which recognised that WRC adjudication involves the exercise of powers of a judicial nature and therefore must comply with fundamental constitutional principles, including openness, fairness and transparency.

Why the WRC's decision was quashed

The High Court accepted that the private nature of the employee's industrial relations disputes under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 was a relevant consideration. However, it held that this did not automatically justify hearing the related statutory employment complaints in private.

The adjudication officer had relied on the existence of 'some overlap in the factual matrix' between the various proceedings. The High Court found that this explanation was insufficient. In particular, there was no meaningful analysis of the nature or extent of the alleged overlap, why a public hearing of the statutory complaints would compromise the integrity of the industrial relations process, whether the matters could be separated, or whether a more limited measure could adequately protect any competing interests.

The judgment highlights the importance of reasoned decision-making. Where a decision-maker seeks to depart from the statutory requirement that WRC hearings be conducted in public, clear and intelligible reasons must be provided so that the parties can understand the basis for the decision and, if necessary, challenge it before the courts. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the direction requiring the statutory employment complaints to be heard in private.

Public access to WRC hearings

The employee also sought a declaration concerning an alleged requirement that members of the public provide personal information or identification in order to attend the hearing. The High Court declined to grant relief on this issue, finding that there was an insufficient evidential basis to assess the nature of the arrangements and their compatibility with the principle of open justice. The High Court also noted that the issue had not been fully argued by the relevant parties.

Importantly, the High Court did not determine whether such identification or security measures are lawful. Instead, it expressly left that question open for consideration in an appropriate future case.

Outcome

The High Court proposed remitting the underlying complaints and disputes to the WRC to be heard by a different adjudication officer. While the industrial relations disputes must continue to be investigated in private in accordance with the Industrial Relations Act 1969, the High Court made clear that any decision to hear a statutory employment complaint, or part of one, in private must be supported by identified special circumstances, a proportionate justification for departing from the public hearing requirement and adequate reasons.

Practical implications for employers

• The decision serves as a reminder that public hearings are now the norm before the WRC and that applications to restrict public access will be closely scrutinised. Employers involved in sensitive workplace disputes should not assume that related industrial relations processes, confidentiality concerns or overlapping factual issues will, without more, justify a private hearing. 

• More broadly, the judgment reinforces that procedural decisions affecting the rights of parties must be supported by clear reasoning. As challenges to WRC procedures continue to emerge in the post-Zalewski era, the courts are likely to require a careful and transparent justification for any departure from the principles of open justice and procedural fairness.