The Supreme Court has set aside the High Court’s finding that the Minister for Education acted unlawfully in ending a transport allowance for a former Mayo VEC chief executive, and remitted that issue to the High Court for a rehearing before a different judge.
The Court held that the specific argument on which the High Court had ruled—that the Minister lacked power under section 15(6) of the Vocational Education Committee (Amendment) Act 2001 to terminate the allowance—had not been clearly pleaded or argued. Although the question of vires had been mentioned during the High Court hearing, the Supreme Court found the decisive point had not been put to the parties for consideration. It concluded that this was a departure from fair procedures.
The appeal arose from the ending in June 2012 of Transport Liaison Officers’ Allowances (TLOA), which had formed part of the remuneration of VEC chief executives. The allowance had originally recognised additional administrative work connected with school transport, but that work had later been transferred to others. Before the litigation, the allowance averaged slightly more than €12,000 a year for the Galway VEC chief executive and between €11,000 and €12,000 for the Mayo VEC chief executive.
The High Court had concluded in 2013 that section 15(6) gave local VECs the role of determining chief executives’ terms and conditions, including changes to allowances, while the Minister’s role was to consent. It found the Minister had no power to terminate the payments. The Minister appealed, arguing that the issue had not been raised and that the parties had not had an opportunity to address it or provide relevant evidence.
The Supreme Court’s order applies to the second applicant, Dr Katie Sweeney. It directed that the single question of vires be reheard in the High Court. An amended statement of grounds may plead that issue, and the Minister may file a new statement of opposition addressing it. The Court said no other issue may be reopened.
No order was made concerning the first applicant, Seosamh MacDonncha, who had died. The Court said his proceeding could not be addressed until it was reconstituted in the name of a legal personal representative or estate administrator. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the Minister had power to end the allowance; that question remains for the High Court.