Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

36. To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform further to Parliamentary Question No. 17 of 14 October 2015, the date the legal tender was entered into; if it prevented the Commission for Public Service Appointments from having recourse to the taxing master process; why substantial fees were incurred in this case; if he is aware that the commission is liable for discharging the legal fees of the applicant who successfully argued that the commission was subject to judicial review; given this judgment, the changes he will introduce in the personnel, procedures and processes of the commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4507/16]

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am advised that the legal service provider was engaged by the Office of the Commission for Public Service Appointments (CPSA) in December 2009. The arrangement with the providers did not prevent the CPSA from having recourse to the Taxing Master process. The CPSA incurred legal fees in successfully defending an application for a Judicial Review. A discrete argument in the proceeding was whether or not the CPSA was subject to Judicial Review in the circumstances before the Court. The Court ultimately found that the CPSA was subject to Judicial Review as argued by the applicant, who was awarded his costs in relation to that discrete argument.  As the CPSA was successful in its defence of the substantive issue raised in the Judicial Review, I am satisfied that there is no need for actions and procedures employed by the CPSA arising from this case specifically to be scrutinised over and above the normal reviews undertaken on an ongoing basis by the Commission.