The High Court has refused Deirdre Morgan leave to seek judicial review of a ministerial decision upholding the refusal of an injury gratuity under the Education and Training Board Teachers Superannuation Scheme.
In a judgment delivered on 1 June 2022, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter said Morgan’s application raised no bona fide arguable grounds concerning the lawfulness of the Minister for Education and Skills’ decision of 16 November 2020. The court refused leave to apply for judicial review; it did not grant the requested order quashing the decision.
Morgan had sought to challenge a determination under Article 70 of the Scheme, which provides for an appeal to the Minister from certain internal dispute resolution decisions. The judge said the determination was non-binding. Morgan was receiving an ill-health retirement pension but had been refused an injury gratuity because she did not meet the Scheme’s criteria, including the requirement that the injury occur in the course of her work.
The judge said the application ostensibly challenged an internal review decision but was, in substance, an attempt to reopen the circumstances of Morgan’s removal from her art teaching position with Kildare and Wicklow Education and Training Board in June 2015. He described the proceedings as brought for an improper purpose and as part of a long-running campaign of legally vexatious complaints and proceedings. Those were the court’s characterisations of the application.
In her verifying affidavit, Morgan said her injury occurred on 7 February 2012 at the Equality Tribunal on Clonmel Street in Dublin. The judge observed that she did not claim the injury occurred while performing her teaching duties. He said the Board was entitled to find that she did not meet the criteria for an injury gratuity and the Minister was entitled to uphold that view.
The judgment also noted that the injury gratuity issue had previously been determined against Morgan by the Workplace Relations Commission, the Labour Court and the High Court. It said she had lodged a complaint with the Pensions Ombudsman. The court’s order in this case was limited to refusing leave to bring judicial review proceedings.