Revocation Without an Oral Hearing: Fair Procedures and Interim Relief
A statutory licensing authority has notified Brightline Security Services Ltd that it proposes to revoke its private security licence. The notice encloses a five-page inspector's report alleging 14 record-keeping failures and one incident in which an unlicensed operative was deployed. The authority's letter gives the company seven days to make written submissions and states that no oral hearing will be held because the file is 'documentary'. Revocation would immediately put 22 employees out of work and trigger termination of three public contracts worth €1.8 million. The company has already requested the inspector's interview notes and CCTV, but they have not been provided. The chairperson of the authority, speaking at a trade conference six weeks ago, said that 'this sector needs cleaning up and we know who the bad apples are'. The final decision is due in 10 days. The company wants to challenge the process in the High Court and asks whether it should also seek an interlocutory injunction.
1. Identify the fair procedures arguments available and assess whether leave for judicial review is likely to be granted.
Read the worked answer
Leave for judicial review requires an arguable case on substantial grounds: O'Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála. The fair procedures points are strong. First, the authority has not disclosed the inspector's notes and CCTV, so Brightline cannot know the case it must meet. Second, seven days may be insufficient for 14 alleged failures and a €1.8 million contract consequence; the seriousness of revocation points toward an oral hearing, although Re Haughey does not require one in every case. Third, the decision-maker's conference remark may show pre-judgment. The absence of an oral hearing is not fatal by itself if the issues are documentary, but the combination of no disclosure, short time and serious consequences makes the process unfair. The three-month JR time limit under Order 84 has not expired because no final decision has been made. An alternative statutory appeal may exist, but it is not necessarily an adequate remedy where the complaint is bias or breach of fair procedures. Leave is likely.
2. Advise on the test for an interlocutory injunction and the balance of convenience.
Read the worked answer
The interlocutory test is Campus Oil v Minister for Industry and Energy (No 2): a serious question to be tried, and the balance of convenience. Damages must be an adequate remedy for the authority? Here the company would lose 22 jobs and three contracts; reputational damage and closure may be irreparable. But the court will ask whether damages would adequately compensate Brightline if it wins, and whether the authority can be protected by an undertaking as to damages. The status quo is that the licence remains in force until a decision. An injunction restraining revocation pending the JR preserves that status quo. The court will weigh the strength of the fair procedures case, the public interest in regulating security providers, and the risk that an unlicensed operator continues. A limited injunction requiring disclosure and a reasonable opportunity to respond may be more proportionate than a blanket restraint. The company should offer an undertaking and propose a timetable.
3. Does the chairperson's conference remark give rise to objective bias? Explain the test and its limits.
Read the worked answer
The test for objective bias is whether a reasonable and fair-minded observer, knowing the relevant facts, would reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker might not be impartial: Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd (No 6). The chairperson's statement that 'we know who the bad apples are' is not a direct reference to Brightline, so it is not automatically disqualifying. Context matters: was the chairperson the final decision-maker, or only one member of a board? Was the remark a general policy statement? A general statement about cleaning up a sector is less likely to meet the threshold than a specific pre-judgment of the company's case. However, if the chairperson sits on the decision panel and has already expressed a concluded view, the appearance of bias is stronger. The court will also consider whether the remark was made close in time to the decision. The remedy is to seek the chairperson's recusal and, if refused, to add bias to the JR grounds.