Wilson v The Secretary of State for Transport (Rev 1)

Regulation 13(5) of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Survey and Certification) Regulations 2013 is engaged only where the seafarer has made a complaint alleging breach of the requirements of the Maritime Labour Convention. The relevant detriment must have been imposed because that Convention complaint was made. Complaints about contractual terms, an employer’s corporate values, tax advice or payment mechanisms do not satisfy that threshold unless they allege a Convention breach. A decision-maker investigating such a complaint may obtain the employer’s account without necessarily reverting to the complainant, provided the procedure is fair in context. An inadequately expressed decision may be read in its procedural and documentary context, and later comprehensive reconsideration may render judicial review academic.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s decision dated 1 October 2014 concerning his complaint that Princess Cruise Lines Limited had terminated his employment in retaliation for complaints about its conduct. He alleged bias, procedural unfairness, inadequate reasons and failure to enforce the Maritime Labour Convention. The MCA had rejected the complaint, an Independent Complaints Assessor had reviewed the handling of the matter, and, after proceedings began, the MCA conducted a fresh review. The central issue was whether the claimant had made a complaint alleging breach of the Convention and, if so, whether his employment termination amounted to detriment on that ground.

1. Claim dismissed. The fresh review by Ms Carlton was a new and comprehensive consideration of the complaint and rendered the proceedings academic. In any event, the claim failed on its merits.
2. Regulation 13(5) of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) Survey and Certification) Regulations 2013 protects a seafarer from detriment on the ground that the seafarer has lodged a complaint alleging breach of the Convention. The claimant’s complaint concerned Princess Cruises’ adherence to its own Core Values. It did not allege breach of the Convention, so regulation 13(5) was not engaged.
3. The cabin-allocation and wage complaints likewise did not allege breaches of the Convention. Even if the termination followed the Core Values complaint, it was not termination because the claimant had lodged a Convention complaint.
4. The MCA was entitled to enquire of Princess Cruises and form a view without necessarily reverting to the claimant. The investigation was not judicial, and no further material matter had been identified which the claimant could have raised. The fair-minded and informed observer test for apparent bias was not satisfied: Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67; [2002] 2 AC 357.
5. The decision of 1 October 2014 was short and ineptly expressed, but, read with the earlier correspondence and decisions, its conclusions were intelligible and rational. Its final paragraph did not leave the issue unresolved when read in context.
6. The alleged previous employment connection of the decision-maker did not establish actual or apparent bias. The Independent Complaints Assessor was required to review the handling of the complaint, not determine Princess Cruises’ substantive compliance. The claim was therefore dismissed.