The High Court has refused most of a teacher’s requests in an ongoing judicial review of the Teaching Council’s decision to refer a complaint against him for a disciplinary inquiry. It allowed him to add three grounds to his case, with the Council to address them at the substantive hearing.
The ruling, delivered by Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger on 31 December 2024, concerned an interlocutory application. It did not decide whether the Council’s referral decision was lawful.
The applicant seeks to quash the Investigating Committee’s decision of 24 January 2022 to refer a complaint to the Council’s Disciplinary Committee. The complaint followed concerns raised by the chief executive of the City of Dublin Education and Training Board about 12 social media posts alleged to have been made by the applicant before 2016.
The Investigating Committee had decided on 29 June 2021 that it had jurisdiction under section 42(1B) of the Teaching Council Act 2001 to consider the complaint. The applicant did not seek to challenge that earlier decision in the judicial review. Justice Bolger noted that if he succeeds in challenging the January 2022 referral, the June 2021 decision would still stand.
The applicant sought documents and answers about how the committee reached its June 2021 decision, including its understanding of the statutory meaning of “harm”. The judge refused discovery and an order compelling replies to particulars. She said the Council had put its entire documentary record before the court, including minutes of the June meeting, and that the applicant’s requests included broad narrative questions. The statute gives “harm” a defined meaning, which the committee was required to apply.
The judge also refused to strike out the Council’s statement of opposition or require it to file a new one. She found the existing statement set out the Council’s position on the legal issues and the basis on which it said the committee acted lawfully. She made clear that the merits of that position would be for the judge hearing the substantive judicial review.
However, Justice Bolger allowed the applicant to add three grounds: that the Council failed to consider relevant information, failed to apply the correct definitions of “harm” and “professional misconduct”, and failed in its duty of full and fair disclosure. The judge said the Council could address those issues at the substantive hearing.
The court did not make a final costs order. Justice Bolger gave an indicative view that there should be no order for costs and said the parties would be heard on costs and any further orders on 30 January 2025.