The High Court ruled that Dublin City University’s purported dismissal of Professor Paul Cahill was invalid, finding that the university had not followed the procedures required by the Universities Act 1997. The court declared that Cahill remained in office and was entitled to salary, and said DCU must take reasonable steps to identify appropriate academic duties for him.
Mr Justice Clarke delivered judgment on 9 February 2007 after a full trial heard from 13 to 21 December 2006. Cahill was an associate professor in DCU’s School of Biotechnology and director of its Vascular Health Research Centre. In early 2006, he discussed moving with his research team to the National University of Ireland Galway, where he was considering a chair in molecular medicine. The court found that he told DCU’s president of the high probability he would move, but that he had not resigned.
On 14 June 2006, DCU’s human resources director sent Cahill a letter giving three months’ notice, stating that his employment would end on 10 September. Cahill challenged the termination, arguing it breached the Universities Act and fair procedures. The university’s statute set out procedures for dismissals based on misconduct or incapacity, but no procedure for ending an officer’s employment simply by giving contractual notice.
The judge held that a termination by notice was still a dismissal under section 25(6) of the Act and required a procedure specified in a university statute. A unilateral decision to end the contract did not meet that requirement. He also concluded that “tenure” under the Act required a greater degree of permanence for university officers than a contract terminable on three months’ notice. The judge left open the precise limits on that protection for a future case. As an alternative ground, he found Cahill had received no advance warning of DCU’s intention to terminate his contract and should have had an opportunity to make representations.
The court had earlier made an interlocutory order allowing Cahill to continue performing his duties while the case awaited trial, alongside DCU’s agreement to continue paying his salary. After the trial, however, the judge said it was unclear whether Cahill could be restored to his former academic position. He declined to make an order directing particular duties, but declared that Cahill remained in office and was entitled to salary. DCU was required to take reasonable steps to identify appropriate academic duties, with a corresponding obligation on Cahill to act reasonably. The parties were given liberty to apply if the process proved unreasonable.