The High Court has restrained Mercy Hospital Cork Limited from proceeding with an inquiry into Noreen O’Sullivan in its existing form, after finding an arguable case that the inquiry could rely on a report prepared through a legally flawed process.
The order is interlocutory: it applies while the case proceeds and does not determine whether Ms O’Sullivan engaged in bullying. The judge said the hospital could conduct an inquiry if its terms of reference were changed to remove reference to the earlier report, or make clear that none of its conclusions would be relied on.
Ms O’Sullivan, an Assistant Director of Nursing at Mercy University Hospital, sought orders to stop the hospital’s proposed inquiry. The dispute arose after a staff member complained that a performance report about her reflected bullying and harassment. Consultant occupational psychologist Declan Brown investigated and concluded that Ms O’Sullivan and another senior nurse had been involved in initiating the report, and that bullying had occurred.
For this interlocutory hearing, the judge proceeded on the basis that Mr Brown had not told Ms O’Sullivan he might make adverse findings against her or given her an opportunity to respond to that possibility. The court said the Brown reports could not be relied on insofar as they concerned her.
The hospital said it accepted that no reliance could be placed on those findings and that Ann O’Brien, appointed to conduct a second inquiry, would examine relevant matters afresh. It described her inquiry as preliminary, intended to inform whether formal disciplinary procedures should begin. The judge noted, however, that the terms of reference and earlier correspondence left it arguable that the new inquiry could rely on the Brown reports beyond using them to identify people to interview or compare accounts.
The court found a fair issue to be tried on whether the proposed inquiry was tainted by the earlier process. It did not accept the separate argument that the known accounts could not amount to bullying, saying that question was premature. It also found no fair issue on the claim that the hospital intended to breach its disciplinary procedures, given its stated position that the O’Brien inquiry was outside those procedures.
The judge concluded that damages would not adequately remedy potential harm to Ms O’Sullivan’s record or reputation, and that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction. The precise form of the order was left for further submissions after the parties had considered the judgment.