By Ruth Mercer
The High Court has refused Dolores Cahill and Melissa Kelly an extension of time to pursue a judicial review challenge over the handling of a protected disclosure made by Cahill.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter found that the proceedings were filed on July 7th, 2025, about five days after the applicable three-month deadline expired. Because no good and sufficient reason was established for the delay, the judicial review cannot proceed.
Cahill, described in the judgment as a scientist and former UCD School of Medicine professor, submitted a report to the Office of Protected Disclosures Commissioner in February 2025. It contained allegations concerning the Covid-19 vaccine programme, public finances and her UCD pension entitlements.
The OPDC decided to transmit the report to the Health Products Regulatory Authority. The HPRA subsequently said the report did not qualify as a protected disclosure within its remit, stating that academic employment and financial matters were outside its responsibilities and that it did not manage vaccination campaigns or authorise Covid-19 vaccines.
The applicants sought to quash both decisions and also raised arguments concerning Ireland's implementation of the EU Protected Disclosures Directive and the absence of an appeal mechanism.
The court treated April 3rd, 2025, when Cahill said she received the decisions, as the date from which time ran. That made July 2nd the filing deadline.
The judge accepted several factors favouring leniency. The applicants were unrepresented, there was no identified prejudice to other parties, and the proceedings concerned the protected-disclosures system. But he found their explanation for the delay vague and insufficient. He noted they had decided early to bring judicial review proceedings and were aware of the three-month limit.
An email sent to the Courts Service on July 7th asking how to file received an accurate response within six minutes. The judge said this undermined claims that the filing process itself had prevented timely action.
The ruling settles only the timing issue. The court did not decide whether the OPDC or HPRA acted unlawfully, whether the disclosure allegations were valid, or whether Ireland had failed to transpose the EU Directive properly.