The High Court has refused two applications by the Public Appointments Service and the Attorney General in a challenge to the 2015 recruitment of two deputy commissioners of An Garda Síochána.
The plaintiff, John Fintan Fanning, issued proceedings in April 2015. He alleges that the recruitment and appointment process breached, among other things, his legitimate expectation and constitutional right to fair procedures. He also challenges questions asked at his interview and seeks related relief. These are claims in the underlying proceedings, not findings made in this judgment.
The defendants first asked the court to strike out the case because the plaintiff had not delivered a statement of claim and had failed to prosecute it promptly. He delivered the statement on 12 April 2018, the day before the motion’s return date. The court found the delay of almost three years was inordinate and inexcusable. It nevertheless refused dismissal, citing the defendants’ own delay in bringing their motion, which the court said amounted to acquiescence, and the circumstances bearing on the balance of justice.
The defendants said the delay had harmed their ability to defend the case. They pointed to the death of one of four interview-board members, the fading recollection of potential witnesses and continuing suspicion around the appointments and the board. The court accepted that one board member was no longer available but noted that three others remained. It was not satisfied that the defendants were seriously prejudiced on that point, and said the defendants had contributed to the delay by waiting almost three years to bring their application.
The judgment also dispensed with the need for service of a notice of intention to proceed, with a view to progressing the case.
A second application concerned a claim added in the statement of claim about the alleged non-disclosure of an anonymous letter dated 13 August 2014. The defendants argued that the claim was out of time by analogy with judicial-review time limits and should not be permitted so late. The plaintiff argued that the objection was not provided for by the court rules and should be dealt with through the defence, with any preliminary ruling sought later if necessary.
The court refused the second application. It said objections to issues raised in a statement of claim would ordinarily be dealt with by delivering a defence and, if necessary, seeking a ruling on a preliminary issue. The defendants were directed to file their defence without further delay. The court did not decide whether the claim about the letter was in fact out of time or determine the underlying recruitment challenge.