The Bunsen burger chain has been granted permission by the High Court to challenge what it calls a “misclassification” of its business as “fast food”, which led to it being refused an application for a visa permit for a chef.
The challenge has been taken by Ducalla Limited, trading as Bunsen, which has outlets in Dublin, Cork and Belfast, against the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Ducalla had submitted a general employment visa permit application for a non-national chef de partie candidate.
The application included a HSE acknowledgement of registration under the European Communities (Hygiene and Foodstuffs) Regulations, which described the food business as a “restaurant”, not as fast food.
The company claims that the section of the regulations applied by the department in denying the permit was for a fast-food outlet, which it was not.
READ MORE
Ducalla submits that Bunsen is a “full-service” restaurant with more than 75 per cent of its customers receiving table service. It says most of its orders are taken “at the table”. This also applies to the serving of meals and drinks, and customer payments.
The company is seeking to quash the review decision of the department from last June, which upheld an earlier refusal.
Anthony Hanrahan SC and Keivon Sotoodeh BL, for Ducalla, submitted to the High Court on Monday that the review decision “is unreasonable and irrational in light of the information and documentation” put before the department.
“In order to fall within the definition of fast-food outlet, the food served in the restaurant must be either ‘pre-cooked’ or ‘quickly prepared’, or both, to fall within the definition,” it was submitted.
“The respondent does not make a finding that the food is pre-cooked and refers to the fact that the food is cooked to order,” it was further submitted.
“The respondent does not dispute the evidence of daily in-house preparation time of four-to-six hours for the raw beef and 15-25 minutes to prepare the meal from time of ordering. No reference is made in the decision to the food.”
Mr Hanrahan told Ms Justice Sara Phelan that if the department’s decision could be interpreted as a finding that the serving of burgers and chips “in itself” means a restaurant is a fast-food outlet, then it was both “unreasonable and irrational”.
Counsel submitted that the department acted in breach of fair procedures. It was also submitted that the department was in breach of natural and constitutional justice in the manner the review decision was made, by failing to adequately engage with the applicant over the chef role.
It is further claimed the department failed to give adequate reasons for applying Section 4 of the Employment Permits Regulations 2024 in failing to establish how Bunsen came to be defined as a fast-food outlet, therefore prohibiting the granting of the permit.
“Bunsen is a fast casual burger dining restaurant, and not a fast-food outlet, serving beer and wine,” they submitted.
Ms Justice Phelan granted permission for the judicial review challenge and adjourned the matter to January.
