The High Court has rejected a former job applicant’s claims against the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland after the bank withdrew an offer for an Administrator position when it found she did not meet its educational criteria. The court awarded no damages.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Robert Eagar on 28 July 2017, concerned claims of misrepresentation, negligent misstatement and breach of contract arising from the recruitment process.
The plaintiff had sent the bank a CV in July 2013 stating that she had earned three honours and four passes in her Leaving Certificate. She later accepted in evidence that this was inaccurate: she had received four passes and three fails in pass-level subjects. The judge accepted that she had overstated her results unwittingly.
The plaintiff argued that a recruitment call on 2 October amounted to an unconditional job offer and that she was effectively advised to give notice at her existing job. The bank disputed this account. Its recruiter said she would normally explain that offers were subject to pre-employment screening, though she did not specifically remember the call.
The judgment records that the application form warned that employment depended on verification of qualifications and that misrepresentation or omission could lead to an offer being withdrawn. The written offer also made the position conditional on satisfactory references, a medical assessment, and verification of qualifications and application details.
The plaintiff did not bring original proof of qualifications to her interview. After the bank requested documents, she provided post-Leaving Certificate results. The judgment says her Leaving Certificate results were later brought to the recruitment office. The bank then told her it could no longer offer the position because she had failed Maths.
Applying the principles in cited cases on negligent misrepresentation and an employer’s right to dismiss, the judge found the plaintiff had not established that the bank failed to exercise due care in making a representation that induced her to enter an agreement to her detriment. He concluded that the conditional nature of the offer had been made clear during the hiring process, including in the application declaration, the phone offer and the written offer.
The court also found that the bank had made clear that successful candidates had to meet specific educational criteria, which the plaintiff did not meet. It therefore rejected her claims and awarded no damages.