Law Society opposes single regime for NCABs
The Law Society has said that it has “reservations” about some of the main proposals in a consultation paper from the Law Reform Commission (LRC) on non-court adjudicative bodies (NCABs).
The LRC paper, published in December, looked at ways of standardising, simplifying, and clarifying the decision-making processes of such bodies.
A Law Society submission described the LRC paper as “very timely”, coming after the Supreme Court’s Zalewski decision, which clarified constitutional law in relation to administrative adjudication in bodies such as the Workplace Relations Commission.
System ‘over-complicated’
The Law Society said that it supported reforms to what it described as the current “over-complicated” system.
It said that too many NCABs were giving “poor-quality” first-instance decisions that often went unchallenged, as applicants could not afford to bring appeal or judicial-review proceedings.
The Law Society expressed concerns, however, about proposals for the introduction of a comprehensive framework statute, which would set out uniform procedural rules, and the establishment of an Administrative Justice Council.
“A single overarching statutory regime risks conflict with existing legislation, increased litigation, and undue procedural rigidity across a diverse range of bodies,” the submission stated.
‘Additional bureaucratic layer’
It added that a new Administrative Justice Council risked creating “an additional bureaucratic layer”.
“Instead, a targeted, incremental approach is advocated, building on existing legislative models and established principles,” it added.
The Law Society called for “practical” reforms, such as:
- Enhanced governance and transparency in NCABs,
- Ongoing training of adjudicators,
- Increased use of shared services between NCABs,
- Improvements to appeals mechanisms, and
- Potentially greater use of the Rules of the Superior Courts to streamline processes.
The submission described as “disappointing” the absence in the LRC paper of a comprehensive schedule or tabular overview of the NCABs currently in existence in the State.
“The absence of a clear, consolidated mapping of NCABs is a significant omission,” it stated.