The High Court has restrained the University of Limerick from continuing an investigation into whether former president Kerstin Mey committed wrongdoing in evidence given to the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee.
Ms Justice Bolger granted an interlocutory injunction pending trial. The ruling does not decide whether the university ultimately has a legal right to reopen the investigation, but preserves the position until that question can be determined.
The dispute stems from a Public Accounts Committee meeting on May 18, 2023. Mey was asked why the university's then Chief Corporate Officer was absent and said he had a long-standing engagement. A protected disclosure later led to an investigation by independent investigator Caroline Jenkinson.
Jenkinson reported in April 2024 that Mey and the senior employee had provided information truthfully and honestly. She said Mey's answers to the committee were factual and correct. The university's Special Disclosures Group accepted that report.
At a later committee meeting in May 2024, acting president Prof Shane Kilcommins gave additional information about the senior employee's whereabouts around the earlier hearing. The university had concerns about those statements before entering a settlement agreement with Mey on June 14, 2024.
Under that agreement, the university warranted that it would not pursue disciplinary action relating to matters up to that date unless new evidence emerged warranting investigation for serious misconduct or fraud. Mey also agreed to cooperate with lawful university processes.
The university later referred the matter back to Jenkinson for re-examination. It accepted before the High Court that no new evidence within the meaning of the settlement clause had emerged, but argued that the Protected Disclosures Act required diligent follow-up.
The court found Mey had a serious arguable case that the settlement prevented the renewed process and that the legislation did not impose an unlimited obligation to keep reopening a protected disclosure investigation. The judge also found potential reputational harm could not adequately be remedied by damages.
The injunction was granted and the case was directed to proceed quickly to trial.