The High Court refused a teacher leave to bring judicial-review proceedings over a proposed stage-one disciplinary meeting at Mountrath Community School, finding the process was not amenable to review because it could result only in a verbal warning. The court also refused to extend time to challenge the Board of Management’s earlier rejection of her complaint against the Principal.
The teacher sought to stop the disciplinary process, which concerned allegations that she had spoken disrespectfully about staff and treated the Principal disrespectfully. The allegations were proposed for consideration under stage one of the procedures known as “Towards 2016”. The school had agreed before the proceedings were issued that an independent person would conduct the process instead of the Principal.
The teacher argued that the Principal was conflicted because she had complained about the Principal’s letter to a doctor who assessed her fitness for work. She also argued that the school had prejudged the disciplinary matter, that the process lacked fair procedures, and that the procedures in “Towards 2016” were outside the powers provided by the Education Act 1998.
The judge rejected the challenge to the procedures. He said the Minister for Education or the Department needed to be a party to proceedings challenging the circular that introduced them. He also concluded that the procedures applied to department-funded schools unless set aside or declared invalid in proceedings involving the Minister or Department.
The teacher also sought an extension of the three-month time limit to challenge the Board’s 7 June 2016 decision rejecting her complaint about the Principal’s letter. The judge refused. He said the complaint and the later disciplinary process were separate, and that the teacher had been told she could pursue the complaint through the school’s grievance or dignity-at-work procedures.
The court distinguished the case from an appeal involving a formal written warning, noting that this process could result only in a verbal warning, which would cease to have effect and be removed from the record after six months, subject to satisfactory conduct. It declined to infer an intention to dismiss the teacher from Board meeting minutes, which were summaries and had not been explained through oral evidence.
The court refused the requested extension of time and refused leave to seek the other judicial-review reliefs. It did not determine whether the allegations against the teacher were true; the disciplinary process had not yet produced a finding.