The High Court has dismissed Mary McEvoy’s application to stop Bank of Ireland’s disciplinary process after the bank decided to dismiss her following an investigation into a missing €80,000 cash remittance at its Portlaoise branch in June 2005.
The ruling, delivered by Miss Justice Laffoy on 26 January 2006, concerned an application for interlocutory injunctions. McEvoy sought orders preventing the bank from proceeding with an appeal, giving effect to the purported dismissal or treating her as no longer employed. She also sought continued salary and pension entitlements and permission to return to her permanent full-time bank clerk position.
The bank’s Group Internal Audit investigated the disappearance of the remittance. McEvoy was among officials involved in preparing cash bags for collection on 27 June, moving them to a drop safe the following morning and their collection by Brinks Allied on 28 June. She was about 20 and had worked for the bank for approximately 15 months, including 10 months in a permanent position.
After disciplinary meetings on 7, 9 and 29 September, regional manager Pat O’Regan notified McEvoy on 3 October that dismissal would take effect immediately. He cited alleged breaches of security procedures, his acceptance of a colleague’s account where evidence conflicted, concerns about the credibility of her explanations and a breakdown of trust. The judgment records these as the manager’s reasons, not as findings by the court about the missing money or McEvoy’s conduct.
McEvoy challenged the fairness of the disciplinary process. Her submissions included that she should have been able to question people whose evidence informed the audit report, that O’Regan had made up his mind before the second meeting, and that he had not addressed questions in her written response. The bank disputed that the process was unfair. Its procedures provided for two appeals, and the dismissal was suspended pending the first appeal; the bank said McEvoy remained an employee on special paid leave.
Justice Laffoy found McEvoy had not established a fair issue to be tried on the procedural complaints considered. The court also regarded the application as premature because two appeals remained open under the bank’s procedures. The judgment addressed only whether the process to that point raised a fair issue for trial. It expressly made no assessment of whether the dismissal decision itself was correct.
The court dismissed the application. It did not decide the underlying employment dispute or determine the merits of the allegations concerning the missing remittance.