The High Court has ruled in favour of a senior nursing manager’s application for an interlocutory injunction over her temporary reassignment by the Health Service Executive (HSE), while leaving the precise terms of the order to be addressed after hearing the parties.
The plaintiff, Area Director of Nursing for Galway and Roscommon Mental Health Service, began proceedings on 9 July 2015. She sought to restrain the HSE from reassigning her from her current position and appointing someone else to it. The reassignment took effect on 6 July, with an acting director appointed pending the interlocutory proceedings.
The HSE said the reassignment was temporary and necessary while it carried out a systems analysis, a national review and a screening process concerning anonymous correspondence. The background included five alleged incidents involving a service user and questions about whether incidents were reported or escalated appropriately. The judgment records that the plaintiff was not then subject to disciplinary or trust in care proceedings.
The plaintiff argued that the reassignment lacked a lawful basis and breached her contract and fair procedures. She said the incidents had been reported and assessed locally, and alleged that the HSE’s real motivation was industrial relations pressure from the Psychiatric Nurses Association. The HSE relied on the employment contract, section 22 of the Health Act 2004 and an implied employer power to manage its affairs.
Justice Kennedy applied the higher threshold for an interlocutory order that would, in substance, require a change to the existing position. She found the plaintiff had shown a strong case that she was likely to succeed at trial on whether the reassignment altered her contractual terms. She did not resolve contested factual issues or find that the HSE’s stated reasons were improper.
The judge also concluded that damages would not adequately address the potential professional reputational harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff. She noted that the reviews could take an uncertain period, while the plaintiff remained paid and continued to manage facilities in Galway.
The court therefore proposed to grant an interlocutory injunction, subject to the usual undertaking as to damages, and said it would hear the parties on the relevant relief. The judgment does not set out the final wording or terms of that injunction.