The High Court dismissed a judicial review application by a Department of Social Protection officer who argued that his 2013 reassignment from the department’s Scope Section was made for an improper purpose.
In a judgment delivered on 6 February 2015, Mr Justice Seamus Noonan said the applicant had not established a factual basis on which the court could interfere with the reassignment. The court did not determine the underlying dispute about how company directors should be classified for PRSI purposes.
The applicant, a higher executive officer and deciding officer under social welfare legislation, had managed staff in Scope Section. He alleged that the Department transferred him to the PeoplePoint human resources project to discipline him for opposing what he considered an unlawful departmental policy and to stop him challenging it. He sought, among other relief, a declaration that the reassignment was unlawful.
The Department’s evidence gave a different account. Senior officers said the reassignment followed difficulties with the applicant accepting management decisions and carrying out instructions. The judgment records that the applicant’s pay, conditions and promotion prospects were unaffected, and that no disciplinary action had been taken against him. The applicant disputed the Department’s characterisation of his new role.
The judge noted that the applicant accepted the respondent’s authority to transfer him. He said many staff reassignments are administrative or managerial decisions and do not automatically engage constitutional or Convention rights or become suitable for judicial review. A different question could arise where a decision is disciplinary and imposes a penalty, or involves dismissal.
The applicant’s allegations about the transfer’s purpose were contradicted by the Department’s sworn evidence. The judge observed that significant conflicts could not be resolved without cross-examination, which the applicant had not sought. The burden of proving the case remained with the applicant, and the court found he had not met it.
The judgment also noted that the applicant had moved in June 2014 to a Finance and Facilities Management unit role, which he described as “key” and did not challenge in these proceedings. The judge said there was no evidence of financial or other detriment and that, following the later transfer, the proceedings were effectively moot apart from the question of costs.
The court dismissed the application. The judgment does not specify a separate costs order.