The Supreme Court has ruled that Professor Connell M. Fanning cannot be forced back into proceedings brought by three current or former members of University College Cork’s economics department after the plaintiffs had discontinued their claim against him.
Anthony Barlow, Martin Kenneally and Michael Ó Suileabhain began the litigation in 1998 against Professor Fanning, who was Professor of Economics and head of the department, and UCC. They alleged negligence and breach of contract arising from matters including alleged isolation within the department, blocked promotion opportunities, denial of sabbatical leave and abusive or intimidating treatment. Those allegations remained disputed.
The plaintiffs also alleged that UCC was vicariously responsible for Professor Fanning’s alleged actions and had failed to supervise and address problems within the department.
Initially, UCC and Professor Fanning shared a legal defence. A university mediation process later began. On 8 June 1999, the plaintiffs formally discontinued their claim against Professor Fanning and expressly said they would not bring fresh proceedings against him over the same matters, while reserving their case against UCC.
Professor Fanning believed the move prevented him from defending his reputation and could allow the dispute to be settled without his involvement. He sought to be rejoined as a defendant. The Master of the High Court refused, but the High Court later allowed his application.
UCC appealed that decision, with the plaintiffs supporting the university’s position.
Chief Justice Keane, delivering the Supreme Court judgment, held that Order 15, Rule 13 did not permit Professor Fanning to be added merely because allegations made in the remaining case might damage his good name. A plaintiff is generally entitled to choose whom to sue, and Professor Fanning was not necessary for the court to determine the remaining dispute against UCC.
The appeal was allowed and his application to be rejoined was dismissed.