The High Court has rejected a school principal’s application to stop two disciplinary investigations by Limerick and Clare Education and Training Board (LCETB), finding that he had not established grounds for the relief sought.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as N. M., challenged investigations into a teacher’s sexual harassment complaint and allegations that teachers had been assigned to give one-to-one tuition to his children during contracted teaching hours. The complaints were allegations, not findings of misconduct.
Mr Justice McDermott held that judicial review was an appropriate route because the Chief Executive’s employment powers were statutory. He also accepted that the application was within time, or that an extension was justified given the applicant’s health difficulties and the ongoing correspondence between the parties.
The court found the procedures for the investigations fair and proportionate at the information-gathering stage. The applicant had been told the allegations and could respond to statements and attend investigator interviews with legal representation. The court said he was not entitled to an oral hearing or cross-examination during that preliminary investigation. If a case proceeded to a Stage 4 disciplinary hearing, however, he would be entitled to make his case and challenge evidence relied upon, including by questioning relevant witnesses. No finding of fact or disciplinary sanction had been made against him.
The court also found that the initial paid suspensions were permitted as temporary measures pending investigation, and that LCETB had taken reasonable steps to progress both matters. It rejected claims that the Chief Executive was biased or that his involvement made the process unfair.
There was a separate concern about the investigation into the teaching allegations. That process had been suspended after a medical assessment found the applicant unfit to engage. Nevertheless, an investigator later submitted a report finding a case to answer on the agricultural science and accounting allegations. The court said the investigation should have remained suspended and the report was not properly completed. LCETB could not rely on it as the basis for a Stage 4 hearing. The court made no formal order granting relief on that complaint; it said further proceedings based on the report would likely face a further challenge.
The court ultimately refused the relief sought, including injunctions to stop the investigations. The judgment did not decide whether either complaint was true or impose a disciplinary outcome.