Hearing

The matter before the Court concerns an appeal following the failed Judicial Review of the Employment (Amendment 8) Act 2026.

MAJORITY OPINION.—
The Court finds that the appeal should be heard.

P7, S1(4) of the Legislation Act 2025 expressly provides that a failed Judicial Review may be appealed by the bill creator a maximum of once, and that the Supreme Court may review the legislation again, with its subsequent decision being final. P7, S1(3) further recognises appeals as an exception to the general rule that the Supreme Court may only review legislation at Stage 6.

The Court therefore finds that a failed Judicial Review does not end the matter where the bill creator has properly exercised the statutory right of appeal. The question before the Court is not whether such an appeal is permitted, as the legislation already provides for it, but how that appeal should be considered.

The Court further finds that this matter properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As the appeal arises directly from a Judicial Review and P7, S1(4) specifically provides that the Supreme Court may review the legislation again, the matter shall be reclassified from AC-115 to SC-115.

In respect of procedure, the Court does not find that a completely new full hearing is required in this instance. The appeal submission, the original Judicial Review, and the arguments already provided give the Court enough information to consider the matter through an internal review and written report. This does not prevent the appellant from providing further arguments or clarification where necessary.

The Court also makes clear that this procedure should not be read as requiring every future Judicial Review appeal to be dealt with by report. Where an appeal raises substantial factual or legal issues that would benefit from a full hearing, the Court may determine that a hearing is appropriate. The procedure should depend on the circumstances of the appeal before the Court.

As this is the first appeal of this nature to be considered under P7, S1(4), a written opinion shall be issued at the conclusion of the Court's deliberations. That opinion shall set out both the procedure adopted for the appeal and the Court's final determination on the merits, so that clear guidance is available for future Judicial Review appeals.

Accordingly, the Court holds that:

1. The appeal is accepted and shall be heard;
2. The matter shall be reclassified as SC-115;
3. The appeal may be considered through internal review and report, without requiring an entirely new full hearing;
4. The appellant may submit further arguments for the Court's consideration; and A written majority opinion shall be issued following deliberations, with the Supreme Court's final decision on the appeal being final in accordance with P7, S1(4).

This majority opinion is issued by dreckly, Chief Justice, alongside Associate Justice Brokyy_, Associate Justice Inconclusive-, Associate Justice GreenArcher, and Associate Justice Pawtistic.






MAJORITY OPINION.—

The Court has considered the Appellant’s appeal concerning the failed Judicial Review of the Employment (Amendment 8) Act 2026. Having reviewed the original Judicial Review, the grounds of appeal, and the additional arguments provided, the Court finds that the appeal should be denied.

The Appellant first raises procedural concerns, particularly the failure to record the number of votes cast in the original Judicial Review. The Court acknowledges that this information should have been properly recorded. However, this omission does not automatically require the original decision to be overturned, especially as the present appeal has allowed the Court to reconsider the legislation independently.

The Appellant also challenges the previous finding that the Employment (Amendment 3) Act 2026 had become a legislative orphan. The Court finds it unnecessary to rely on that determination. Even if the Appellant is correct on this issue, it does not resolve the constitutional concern which caused Amendment 8 to fail Judicial Review.

The Court also recognises that similar provisions had previously passed Judicial Review under Amendment 3. However, an earlier Judicial Review does not prevent the Court from reconsidering whether a provision remains compatible with the Constitution.

The central issue is the requirement for an employee’s general reason for a Leave of Absence to be publicly displayed on their Employee Records Service profile.

The Court distinguishes between providing a reason privately to the relevant authority and requiring that reason to be made public. A general reason may reveal personal information relating to family, health, or other private circumstances. Although an employee could simply state “personal reasons,” the legislation does not require them to limit their explanation in that way.

The Court is also not persuaded that publishing the reason is necessary. Branch Leadership already has access to the relevant LOA information, while publishing the start and end dates is sufficient to show that an employee is on leave.

Accordingly, the Court finds that requiring the reason to be publicly displayed goes further than necessary and infringes the Right to Privacy under Article 8, Section 1(3) of the Constitution.

The Court therefore holds that:

1. The procedural concerns raised by the Appellant do not require the original Judicial Review to be overturned
2. The Court does not rely upon the previous legislative-orphan determination in deciding this appeal
3. The previous passage of similar provisions does not prevent the Court from reconsidering their constitutionality
4. Requiring an employee’s general Leave of Absence reason to be publicly displayed infringes the constitutional Right to Privacy
5. The failed Judicial Review of the Employment (Amendment 8) Act 2026 shall remain in effect

Pursuant to P7, S1(4) of the Legislation Act 2025, the Supreme Court’s decision following this appeal is final.

The appeal is DENIED by a vote of 6-0.