The Court of Appeal has lifted a stay on an investigation into a staff member’s complaints of bullying and harassment at the National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG), allowing the investigation to continue while separate proceedings remain before the High Court.
In a judgment delivered on 21 March 2018, Ms Justice Irvine allowed NUIG’s appeal and discharged the High Court order that had halted the investigative process pending trial. The appeal concerned an interlocutory injunction, not a final decision on the underlying complaints or on the full proceedings.
The complaints were made in April 2014 against nine staff members, including Professor Heinz-Peter Nasheuer. After a dispute about which university procedure should apply, the Labour Court recommended in October 2016 that an independent investigator be appointed. It directed the investigator to set the terms and scope of the inquiry, with regard to university policies and fair procedures. The Labour Court appointed Janet Hughes, who had briefly represented the complainant in a separate matter against NUIG in 1996.
Professor Nasheuer objected to Ms Hughes continuing, citing that past professional connection and her consultation with the complainant and NUIG before finalising the terms of reference. He argued that he had not been given the same opportunity to contribute. Ms Hughes said the Labour Court’s procedure required consultation with the complainant and university, but did not require agreement or consultation with the respondents. She also said Professor Nasheuer could make arguments about prejudice caused by delay during the investigation.
The High Court granted a stay in September 2017, finding a fair question to be tried on objective bias. It considered the investigator’s prior connection and the way the terms of reference were settled, including the different opportunities offered to the complainant and the professor.
The Court of Appeal examined whether the evidence established a serious issue to be tried over objective bias, a lower threshold than deciding the issue at a full hearing. It concluded that the 1996 professional involvement was brief and remote, and that the investigator had followed the Labour Court’s procedure. The court said the reasonable, informed observer would know the investigator alone set the terms of reference, the complainant and university had only been consulted, and Professor Nasheuer could raise delay-related arguments during the investigation.
The court held that neither the past professional connection nor the handling of the terms of reference, separately or together, supported a serious issue to be tried on objective bias. It allowed the appeal and discharged the stay. The judgment did not decide whether the complaints were true or determine the merits of the underlying proceedings.