The Supreme Court has upheld a former soldier’s claim arising from his discharge from the Defence Forces before the end of an approved two-year extension of service.
James McGrath had served for 26½ years when he was discharged on 12 May 1996. He had suffered a right-knee injury in 1977 and was subsequently classified as Category C, which prevented him from carrying out regimental duties involving weaponry but allowed him to perform other duties.
Despite that limitation, the High Court evidence showed that Mr McGrath performed a wide range of duties between 1987 and 1996, including overseas service. He received a two-year extension of service in 1992. A further two-year extension, running to 29 October 1996, was approved following an April 1994 medical examination which again classified him as Category C and recommended that he remain in service.
The State accepted that there had been no material change in his medical condition. However, following a Defence Forces policy change, Category C personnel were required to be capable of regimental duties. Mr McGrath underwent a special medical examination, was downgraded to Category E and was discharged early.
The High Court found that the discharge breached a contractual obligation arising from the fixed two-year extension and awarded damages. The Minister for Defence, Ireland and the Attorney General appealed.
Mr Justice Geoghegan agreed with the High Court. He held that, once the Minister granted a service extension for a defined period, there was an enforceable obligation to allow that service to continue unless a relevant change in circumstances or applicable statutory provision justified earlier discharge.
He found that Mr McGrath’s reclassification resulted from a change in policy rather than a deterioration in his health.
The judge also said that, if the contractual analysis were incorrect, Mr McGrath was nevertheless entitled to succeed on legitimate expectation grounds because the State had changed the position after granting the fixed extension without any new material circumstance.
The State’s appeal was dismissed. The precise damages analysis was addressed in a separate judgment of Mr Justice Fennelly and is not set out in this judgment.