The High Court refused to stop a Garda disciplinary appeal from proceeding, ruling that Máire O’Reilly could not use new proceedings to relitigate issues decided in an earlier case. It left open the possibility of a separate challenge to the revival of other disciplinary inquiries from 2010 and 2011, about which the court said it knew little.
The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána had applied to strike out O’Reilly’s action or have it dismissed as an abuse of process. The action followed an interim order made on 9 January 2019 that temporarily restrained the Commissioner from proceeding with O’Reilly’s appeal against a board of inquiry recommendation that she be dismissed. That board had considered an allegation of absence without leave from 7 March 2012 to 23 May 2013.
Justice Allen found that the summons disclosed a cause of action, or that he could not be satisfied it did not. But he held that O’Reilly’s complaints about her bullying complaint and the disciplinary process that led to the board’s recommendation had already been argued and decided in her 2014 action, which was dismissed by the High Court and whose dismissal was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2018.
The court said O’Reilly could not challenge the Appeal Board’s authority to hear her appeal or the original commencement of separate inquiries relating to 2010 and 2011. Any challenge to those matters based on circumstances that existed during the earlier litigation was also precluded, the judge said.
However, Allen distinguished a possible complaint about the later revival of the 2010 and 2011 inquiries. Notices in May and July 2018 appointed an investigating officer to examine allegations including failure to report for duty, attend medical appointments and provide medical certificates. The judge said it was unclear whether those inquiries had progressed, and that a challenge to their revival would not be barred as res judicata.
The Commissioner’s applications to strike out the entire action or dismiss it were refused, as was a request for an order restricting O’Reilly from bringing future proceedings without court permission. The court declared that she could not relitigate claims arising from the inquiry into her absence between March 2012 and May 2013, up to the Appeal Board’s reconvening, or seek to restrain the appeal hearing. It also refused her motion for an interlocutory injunction and discharged the interim order. The Appeal Board was to hear and determine the appeal in early course.