The High Court has removed barrister Michael MacNamee from proceedings arising from a disputed promotion process at Moyne Community School, holding that he was immune from being sued for negligence over his work as arbitrator.
Patrick Redahan had been selected for the position of Assistant Principal on October 21, 1999. The appointment was provisional, subject to approval by the Minister for Education and Science and to the outcome of any appeals by unsuccessful candidates.
Appeals were lodged. MacNamee was jointly appointed as arbitrator under Department circular CL15/97, which regulated appointments to responsibility posts in community and comprehensive schools. He allowed the appeals. The Department subsequently instructed the school's Board of Management to terminate Redahan's provisional appointment.
Redahan began proceedings in 2001 and later had MacNamee joined as a defendant. He alleged, among other matters, that the arbitrator had accepted appeals outside what Redahan said was a mandatory time limit and had considered them at an oral hearing from which Redahan was excluded.
Redahan sought declarations that MacNamee had exceeded his jurisdiction, an order remitting the appeals to arbitration, and damages for negligence or breach of duty.
Mr Justice Gilligan held first that MacNamee did not need to remain a defendant for the declarations or remittal sought. Those remedies could be pursued against the remaining defendants. Once an arbitrator has issued a final decision, the judge explained, the arbitrator is generally "functus officio" — meaning his authority over the arbitration has ended.
The court also held that the appeal arrangement in CL15/97 amounted to an arbitration agreement governed by the Arbitration Acts.
On the damages claim, the judge found that arbitrators perform a quasi-judicial decision-making role and enjoy common-law immunity from negligence suits. Redahan did not allege bad faith by MacNamee.
MacNamee was therefore discharged from the proceedings. The judgment did not decide whether the underlying arbitration decision was valid or whether Redahan was entitled to relief against the remaining defendants.