The High Court ordered the defendants in a former nurse’s employment case to pay the costs of her motion for an interlocutory injunction, including the application for short service. It did not order them to pay the costs of the action, and the judgment did not determine the underlying claim for damages.
The nurse, Alexandra Fieraru, had worked at Elm Green Nursing Home in Castleknock, Dublin 15, from August 2016. She was suspended on pay in March 2018 while an allegation about how she had spoken to a resident was investigated. She denied the allegation and was summarily dismissed on 19 April. Her dismissal letter said she could appeal to one of the defendants, Martin O’Dowd, but gave no contact details for him.
After obtaining his email address, Ms Fieraru asked on 8 May whether she could make a late appeal. Mr O’Dowd replied that she could. Her solicitor then sent correspondence seeking details of the appeals procedure and investigation notes, and later set out 23 grounds of appeal. The judgment records that the defendants did not respond to or acknowledge the letters before proceedings began.
Ms Fieraru’s solicitor also objected that a complaint had been made to the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland before she had an opportunity to exhaust her employment appeal. The Board notified her of the complaint in May and invited her to provide information for its preliminary assessment.
On 14 June, Ms Fieraru issued proceedings seeking declarations, an injunction requiring the defendants to determine her appeal promptly, and, if appropriate, damages. She also obtained leave for short service of an interlocutory injunction motion. The following morning, the defendants’ representatives said an appeal hearing would be arranged. The motion was then adjourned for argument on costs.
Justice Allen found there was substance to the nurse’s position that the proceedings had been necessary to secure an appeal. He said she was entitled to expect a prompt appeal, particularly because she had been dismissed and had no income while waiting. The court noted that five weeks had passed after her appeal request without arrangements or assurance, and that the defendants had not explained by affidavit when or why their June letters were prepared or delayed.
The judge held that the agreement to conduct the appeal rendered the injunction motion moot. The action itself was not moot: the defendants could still seek to justify the delay, and the agreement did not resolve the damages claim. The court therefore ordered the defendants to pay the motion costs, including short-service costs, but not the costs of the action.