Table of Content
1. the court upheld the minister's recognition of a trade union after proper procedures were followed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. timeliness of objections is critical in judicial reviews of administrative decisions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

[1] The appellant appeals against the decision of the learned High Court Judge who refused to quash the decision of the Minister giving recognition to the 2nd respondent, the Trade Union, pursuant to s 9 Industrial Relations Act 1967 (IRA 1967) on the grounds that the appellant had consented to a procedure relating to ballot by the employees concerned whom the appellant had approved. In essence, the learned trial judge took the position that the decision arising from the ballot procedure as well as the decision of the Minister ought not be impinged by entertaining the complaint by the appellant that those who balloted did not satisfy the requirement stated in the Act.

[2] This appeal came before us for hearing on 17 August 2016. We heard the appeal and dismissed it. In this case, the learned High Court Judge had written an articulate judgment on the facts and law and in consequence a further judgment is sheer wast

Click Here to Read the rest of this document