The High Court has allowed Dublin Bus’s appeal and vacated a Circuit Court order in Claire McKevitt’s unfair-dismissal case. Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh ruled that Ms McKevitt had fair notice that retirement on grounds of incapacity was being considered and an adequate opportunity to put forward her case.
Ms McKevitt was dismissed in April 2014 after Dublin Bus’s medical department concluded she was permanently unfit to drive a bus and no suitable alternative duties were available. The Employment Appeals Tribunal had found her dismissal unfair and awarded her €17,500. On appeal, the Circuit Court also found in her favour, on the ground that Dr Whelan had not re-examined, met or heard from her, and reduced the award to €10,000. Dublin Bus appealed that order to the High Court.
The dispute arose from several years of health problems and absences. Ms McKevitt had reported a blackout in 2011 and was diagnosed with vasovagal syncope after a 2012 test. In February 2014, the Falls and Blackout Unit said she was at low risk of recurrence and considered her fit to drive, including commercially. Her GP later said she had recovered from depression, her irritable bowel symptoms were stable, and she was fit to return.
Dublin Bus’s occupational physicians assessed her overall medical history, including syncope, back and hand pain, irritable bowel symptoms, depression and other complaints. They concluded that the combined pattern and the demands of bus driving made her unfit for regular, satisfactory service. The judgment records their view that the assessment concerned her overall capacity and tolerance for the work, not syncope alone.
The High Court applied the principles in *Bolger v Showerings*: an employer relying on incapacity must establish that it was the reason for dismissal, that the reason was substantial, and that the employee had fair notice and an opportunity to be heard. The judge found the first two points were not in doubt. She found that Dr Loftus told Ms McKevitt in December 2013 that retirement was being considered and advised her again in January; letters followed in February and April.
The judge also found that Ms McKevitt had an adequate opportunity to submit medical material. Dr Loftus considered reports as they arrived, and Dr Whelan reviewed the file, including the final unit report and the GP’s report. The court did not treat that review as a formal appeal, finding no established right to one in the circumstances. It also rejected the claim that a third medical opinion was required, concluding that the medical evidence was not conflicting in the relevant sense: the employer’s doctors weighed the syncope assessment alongside the wider history.
The High Court therefore allowed Dublin Bus’s appeal and vacated the Circuit Court order. The judgment does not state a replacement compensation award.