The High Court dismissed a school principal’s application to stop a disciplinary hearing, finding that the employment dispute was not amenable to judicial review and that the principal had not acted promptly. The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias against the appointed school manager, but did not decide how the proposed hearing should be conducted or whether the manager could investigate attendance records under the national school rules.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice O’Keeffe on 18 December 2009, concerned John Hand, principal of St Oliver Plunkett’s Primary School in Navan, and Brendan Ludlow, the school’s appointed single manager. Hand sought to prohibit a disciplinary hearing and any further disciplinary process arising from inquiries into alleged irregularities at the school.
The inquiries followed the temporary transfer of four pupils from St Oliver Plunkett’s to Kilmainhamwood National School in September 2007. Two were Hand’s children; his wife was then principal of Kilmainhamwood. A Department of Education inspector’s report said enrolment figures at both schools had been manipulated to help Kilmainhamwood retain a teaching post, and identified alleged breaches of national school rules and a Department circular. Those were allegations and matters raised in the proposed disciplinary process, not findings made in this judicial review judgment.
Ludlow was appointed single manager after the school’s Board of Management term expired. He conducted inquiries into several issues and, in a letter dated 10 June 2008, set out disciplinary charges. The letter warned that a sanction, including dismissal, could follow and said Hand could question witnesses and have representation. Hand argued that Ludlow had taken on investigative and adjudicative roles and that his links with former board chair Fr Gavin and the school patron gave rise to bias.
Justice O’Keeffe held that the challenge concerned the employer-employee relationship and should be pursued through private law remedies rather than judicial review. He separately found that Hand knew of the grounds for challenging Ludlow’s appointment and investigative role months before starting proceedings on 30 July 2008, and had not moved promptly. No application to extend the time limit had been made.
The court did not determine whether Ludlow’s appointment was lawful. It agreed that the school patron, who appointed him with ministerial approval, was essential to a challenge to that appointment and was not a party to the case. On bias, it found no evidence of personal antagonism or prejudgment sufficient to disqualify Ludlow. His attendance at a January 2008 meeting with the former chair and others, and his residence in the same house as the former chair, did not establish a reasonable fear that Hand would not receive a fair hearing.
The dismissal did not determine how evidence or witnesses should be handled at the disciplinary hearing, whether Hand would be able to cross-examine witnesses, or whether Ludlow could investigate attendance records under Rule 108. The court also made no decision affecting the patron’s alleged role as an appeals person.