The High Court refused an application by Joan Buckley to stop University College Cork’s recruitment process for ten professorial posts, after she was not shortlisted for interview. The court said the evidence before it did not show a real prospect that she would obtain permanent injunctions at trial. It added that, even if that threshold had been met, the balance of convenience favoured refusing interim relief.
Buckley applied for the posts in February 2016. UCC told her on 15 March that she had not been shortlisted, and gave reasons on 21 March: it said the field was of extremely high calibre and that her application did not demonstrate the research output required to progress. Thirty-six candidates were shortlisted from 262 applicants, some of whom applied for more than one post. Two applicants later withdrew.
Buckley sought eight injunctions, both prohibitory and mandatory, along with declaratory orders in the underlying proceedings. Her arguments included alleged bias by a selection committee member, non-compliance with the appointment regulations, assurances about her promotion prospects, and her view that she met the criteria for appointment. UCC denied that the process was unfair or biased and said it complied with the regulations.
Justice O’Regan said the qualitative assessment of candidates belonged to the selection committee. The two external committee members had concluded that Buckley should not be shortlisted; the other members, including the person whose alleged bias she raised, agreed. The judge found no evidence that the alleged bias influenced the other members’ decision. She also said Buckley had not countered UCC’s evidence about the time spent assessing applications or committee members’ training.
The court found no material evidence of a contractual right to promotion or shortlisting. It noted that an internal promotion process in 2014 had been available to Buckley but she did not pursue it. The judge also referred to a June 2014 email stating that promotion to Professor Scale II could not be granted outside the normal competition or internal promotion routes.
As an alternative basis for refusing relief, the judge said the recruitment process was already advanced: the posts had been advertised months earlier, 36 candidates had been shortlisted, and interviews were scheduled to begin on 4 April, including for candidates travelling from outside the jurisdiction. The court therefore refused the requested interim injunctions. The judgment did not determine the underlying plenary action or make a final ruling on the permanent relief sought.