The Supreme Court has dismissed Kathleen Fitzpatrick’s appeal over the Board of Management of St. Mary’s Touraneena National School’s decision to seek an independent medical assessment before she returned to teaching duties.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2013, Chief Justice Susan Denham said the Board was entitled to invoke clause 7.3 of Primary Circular 10/05. The circular has since been superseded, and the court said its decision concerned the law as it stood at the time.
Fitzpatrick had challenged the Board’s referral under the circular, which allowed a board with concerns about a teacher’s proposed return to work to seek an independent medical assessment. She argued that the Board acted outside its powers and that its decision was improper and unfair. Her case also noted that her general practitioner, consultant psychiatrist and the Department’s Chief Medical Officer had certified her fit to return.
The High Court had refused her judicial review application in 2008, finding that the Board had bona fide concerns about her fitness to return and had acted within its powers. The Supreme Court found no error in that decision. It said the evidence gave the High Court a sufficient basis for its conclusions on the Board’s bona fides, natural justice and fairness.
The proposed assessment by Dr. Mohan did not take place. After Fitzpatrick raised objections, the Board proposed an assessment by another independent psychiatrist, Dr. Lawler, on terms that the disputed document prepared by the school principal would not be provided and no Board representative would meet the doctor. Fitzpatrick did not take up that proposal.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the challenge concerning Dr. Mohan was moot because the examination never happened and the Board had offered an alternative. It also treated the proposed Dr. Lawler appointment as moot in the circumstances. The court did not order either assessment to proceed.
The appeal also concerned the Minister for Education and Science. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s dismissal of the case against the Minister, noting that the grounds granted for judicial review related to the Board.
The court affirmed the High Court judgment and dismissed the appeal.