The High Court has refused an application by Philip Nolan to restrain Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) from terminating his employment as its Director General, finding that he had not established a strong case that he was dismissed for misconduct.
In a judgment delivered on 21 June 2024, Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy said the Board’s termination letter referred to allegations and investigation findings, leaving doubt about the reasons for dismissal. But SFI’s evidence in the injunction proceedings said the decision was based on what it described as dysfunction in the organisation, rather than a finding of misconduct. The judge said the evidence did not establish a strong case that the Board had decided to dismiss Mr Nolan because it concluded he was guilty of misconduct.
The application followed a series of protected disclosures made by senior SFI staff alleging, among other matters, bullying and governance breaches. An independent investigator found the bullying allegations were not made out and identified instances of inappropriate behaviour, but expressly said he was not making formal findings of misconduct. SFI’s Protected Disclosures Group recommended a disciplinary hearing in relation to two staff members’ complaints. The Board adopted that recommendation, but no disciplinary hearing had taken place before Mr Nolan’s dismissal.
SFI terminated his contract on 27 May 2024, citing its contractual termination provisions and concerns that discord and a breakdown in trust threatened the organisation’s ability to perform its statutory responsibilities. Mr Nolan argued that the dismissal was in substance for misconduct and that he had been given no fair procedures. SFI maintained that it had exercised its contractual right to terminate his employment and had not dismissed him for misconduct.
The judge said an employer’s description of its reason for dismissal does not settle the question; the court must consider the substance of the reason. However, at this interlocutory stage, he could not resolve disputed facts and was not satisfied that Mr Nolan met the high threshold for a mandatory injunction. He also said a return-to-work order would not have been appropriate, even if that threshold had been met.
The court refused the interlocutory injunction and proposed discharging the interim injunction granted on 30 May. That interim order was to remain in place until final orders on the application. The underlying proceedings were not determined. The court listed the matter for 4 July 2024 to address final orders, directions and costs.