The High Court dismissed a psychiatrist’s claim to permanent employment with the Health Service Executive, finding that neither his temporary contract nor alleged assurances gave him a right to the permanent consultant post. It did not decide whether his employment should be treated as a contract of indefinite duration under fixed-term work legislation; that issue must first go to a Rights Commissioner.
In a judgment delivered on 9 November 2011, Miss Justice Laffoy considered the psychiatrist’s appointment at St. Loman’s Hospital in Mullingar. He had taken up a temporary consultant post in April 2010 to provide cover pending the permanent filling of the position. The HSE later began a recruitment process for the permanent post.
The plaintiff argued that staff had led him to expect security of tenure when he applied for the temporary position. The judge preferred the evidence of Dr. Mary O’Hanlon about her discussions with him and found that neither she nor Dr. Ciarán Corcoran had promised that the appointment would become permanent or help him secure a contract of indefinite duration. The judge also found that neither had authority to commit the HSE to such an outcome. The legitimate-expectation claim therefore failed.
The plaintiff also relied on a probation clause in his 2010 contract. He argued that after 12 months without certification of his service, the contract deemed him permanently appointed. The court read that clause in the context of the contract, which expressly described the appointment as temporary and said it would last pending the permanent filling of the post. It held that the probation provisions did not apply to him as a temporary appointee and rejected his claim to permanent appointment under the contract. The HSE’s counterclaim to rectify the contract by deleting the clause did not arise.
Separately, the plaintiff claimed that more than four years of continuous fixed-term employment meant his contract became one of indefinite duration under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. The HSE disputed that claim, relying on the statutory exception for renewals justified by objective grounds. The court held that the statutory issue had to be pursued through the Act’s complaint and appeal process, beginning with the Rights Commissioner. The plaintiff’s complaint there remained pending. The judge expressed no view on whether the statutory claim would succeed.
The court ordered the plaintiff’s claim dismissed. It reserved submissions on how that decision affected undertakings the HSE had given during the interlocutory stage, including not proceeding with recruitment for the permanent post. The judgment did not resolve the effect of those undertakings.