The Supreme Court dismissed Dublin City University’s appeal in a dispute over the dismissal of an associate professor, finding that the university had failed to give him fair procedures before ending his employment. The court did not decide the final form of any relief, directing that the parties make written submissions before a further hearing on that question.
Paul Cahill was an associate professor in DCU’s School of Biotechnology. The university purported to dismiss him after he did not provide a departure date following discussions about an offer from NUI Galway to take up a chair in Molecular Medicine and bring his research team with him.
Cahill said he had told DCU’s president about the offer as a courtesy and to find out whether DCU might improve its offer. He denied saying that his departure was certain. The president’s evidence was that he understood Cahill would definitely leave. It was common ground in the High Court that Cahill had not formally resigned and that, if his employment ended, it did so by dismissal.
The High Court ruled for Cahill on three alternative grounds, including procedural grounds and questions about tenure and the Universities Act 1997. DCU appealed. Supreme Court Justice Geoghegan said he was deciding the appeal only on the procedural ground. He expressly left open whether the High Court’s other grounds were correct, including the meaning and effect of statutory provisions on dismissal and tenure.
The Supreme Court held that Cahill was entitled to fair procedures before dismissal. In the circumstances, DCU should have given him a final warning that it proposed to serve notice of termination, followed by an opportunity to explain why it should not do so. The court also described the required procedure as a warning that termination notice would follow unless Cahill clarified within a reasonable period whether or when he would leave. That had not happened, so the termination was invalid.
The court noted that Cahill’s position was “less than fully meritorious” and that several years had passed since the High Court hearing. It said an injunction could not be made if it would be impracticable or impossible for the court to supervise. The appeal was dismissed, but the court made no final decision on the order or relief. It directed that both parties submit written arguments on those matters before a further hearing.