The High Court dismissed Kieran Byrne’s case challenging Waterford Institute of Technology’s decision not to appoint him to a new five-year term as president. Mr Justice Allen held that appointment was a reserved function of the institute’s governing body, which was not bound to accept the selection board’s recommendation.
The selection board unanimously recommended Mr Byrne after interviewing candidates on 31 March 2011. The governing body did not make an appointment at its planned 12 April meeting. It adjourned to consider concerns about the recruitment process, a newspaper article about expenditure linked to the president’s office and a pending freedom of information request.
A subcommittee commissioned Deloitte to review expenditure records. Its draft report identified failures to comply with procurement, travel and hospitality policies and said certain expenditure warranted further examination. The judgment records that Mr Byrne disagreed with aspects of the review and defended the expenses as incurred for his office and good value. The court did not determine the accuracy of every reported expenditure figure; it considered whether the governing body could take the information into account when deciding whether to appoint him.
At its reconvened meeting on 12 May, the governing body heard about the draft Deloitte report and concerns raised by a selection-board member about the process. It unanimously resolved not to ratify the nominated candidate. The court found that the selection board had authority to recommend a candidate, but not to make the appointment. Its members could also communicate reservations about the process, even after making a recommendation.
Mr Byrne argued that he was entitled to be reappointed and, alternatively, had a legitimate expectation of reappointment. The judge rejected both arguments. The governing body retained its statutory appointment power, and Mr Byrne knew that the selection board’s recommendation was subject to its approval. The judgment also found no evidence that the institute had promised reappointment or that Mr Byrne had acted in reliance on such a promise.
The court concluded that the governing body was entitled to consider both the process concerns and information about expenditure and policy compliance. It dismissed the case. The judgment records that Mr Byrne’s ten-year term expired on 13 May 2011; he later resigned or retired from the alternative senior position he had taken up.