The High Court granted Dr Paul Quigley an interlocutory injunction restraining the Health Service Executive from ending his employment at age 65, pending the determination of his proceedings. The judge found he had a strong case that his employment was for an indefinite period and that damages would not adequately compensate him if he lost his work before trial.
The order followed a dispute over a letter sent by HSE general manager Donal Cassidy on 22 September 2017. It said Quigley’s employment would end on 19 October, his 65th birthday, with his final day of service on 18 October. Quigley, a GP specialising in substance abuse who had worked for the HSE since 1998 in North Dublin, argued that his contract contained no retirement age and that compulsory retirement was unlawful age discrimination.
The judge said the 2001 contract negotiated between the HSE’s predecessor and the Irish Medical Organisation provided for employment of indefinite duration and did not mention retirement at 65. Although Quigley had not signed it, the HSE had told him in 2006 that it considered him to be working under its provisions on the same terms as colleagues who had signed. The judge said, for the purpose of the injunction application, “indefinite period” could mean employment continuing while the doctor remained able to provide medical services, unless a new agreement changed that position.
The HSE argued that Quigley was a permanent officer appointed before 1 April 2004 and was therefore subject to a retirement age of 65. It also relied on legislation, pension scheme material and an asserted implied contractual term. The judge noted evidence from three medical colleagues that they knew of no GP specialising in substance abuse who had been required to retire at 65; two doctors in the field were continuing to work beyond that age. He said their evidence was not significantly challenged.
The court did not decide the final contractual or discrimination claims. The judge said those issues, including the legal effect of the 2004 legislation and claims under employment equality law, would be for the trial judge. He also rejected the HSE’s argument that the proceedings could only be pursued before the Workplace Relations Commission, finding the injunction proceedings could proceed on the 2001 contract issue.
In granting interim relief, the judge found Quigley had shown a strong case likely to succeed, and that the balance of convenience favoured keeping him at work. He said the HSE had not arranged a replacement and that his continued work would benefit patients. The proceedings were to be case managed, with counsel to address the timetable. The order was to record Quigley’s undertaking as to damages.