The Court of Appeal has allowed a teacher’s appeal against the dismissal of his judicial review challenge to a school disciplinary process, sending the case back to the High Court to decide the procedural arguments.
The appeal court held that the case was not moot merely because the 12-month final written warning had expired, and that the issues could not be treated as trivial. It did not decide whether the school had followed the agreed disciplinary procedures or whether the underlying complaint was true.
The teacher, Pierce Dillon, worked at Catholic University School from 1992 to 2017. The school’s board found a complaint about his conduct towards a student, referred to as AB to protect the minor’s anonymity, was well founded. The complaint concerned two incidents in May 2014 and alleged that Dillon called the student an offensive name. Dillon denied using the term.
After informal resolution attempts failed, the matter proceeded under the school’s complaints and disciplinary procedures. The board made its finding on 24 February 2015. A final written warning followed in April 2015. It stated that the warning would remain active for 12 months, subject to satisfactory service, and that further similar conduct could lead to additional disciplinary action, including dismissal. Dillon sought to appeal, but the school replied that the board’s decision was final.
The warning’s expiry did not, in the Court of Appeal’s view, remove the case’s potential consequences for Dillon’s reputation and employment prospects. The court distinguished the matter from cases involving expired or minor sanctions, reasoning that a formal finding about a teacher’s conduct towards a pupil could carry lasting professional implications.
The High Court had dismissed Dillon’s judicial review application in 2016, finding the dispute moot and the matter de minimis. The Court of Appeal concluded that those grounds did not justify dismissing the case at the outset. It also rejected the suggestion that the High Court could decline to determine an otherwise justiciable dispute in advance on the basis that doing so would waste public resources.
The appeal court remitted the case to the High Court for a fresh determination of Dillon’s arguments about procedural unfairness and compliance with the agreed disciplinary procedures in Department of Education and Science Circular 60/2009. It expressed no view on the merits of those arguments. The appeal court did not quash the board’s finding or the warning.