The High Court has restrained the board of management of Coláiste Iognáid from continuing its disciplinary investigation of the school’s principal pending the full trial of her action.
In a judgment delivered on 15 December 2015, Mr Justice Binchy found that the principal had established a strong case that the investigation did not comply with the procedures in Department of Education Circular 60/2009 and that the process may have denied her fair procedures. The court did not decide the underlying disciplinary allegations or finally determine whether the procedures had been breached.
The dispute arose from a report prepared by the board’s chairperson, Jack Cleary, about concerns regarding the principal’s performance. The board considered the report at meetings in May and June 2015 and decided to seek the principal’s response under stage four of the disciplinary procedure. She received the final report in August.
The procedure required the chairperson to send the report to the board and principal at the same time. The judge said the report should have been provided to the principal when it went to the board. Instead, the board discussed it at two meetings before she received it. The judge said that discussion, without her response, created a risk that board members would begin to reach conclusions before hearing from her.
The principal argued that the report went beyond gathering evidence and included findings and conclusions about her conduct, made without her input. The board denied prejudgment and said the report was intended only to establish whether there was a case to answer. It also pointed to safeguards in the procedure, including a written response, an oral hearing, legal representation, the ability to call and question witnesses, and an appeal.
The judge said the July report contained remarks that were highly prejudicial and included conclusions about the principal’s performance. He found a strong case that these went beyond a preliminary evidence-gathering exercise and that the report made findings without giving her an opportunity to respond. He also found a strong case that the board’s advance consideration of the report breached the circular’s requirement for simultaneous delivery.
The ruling was interlocutory: it preserved the position until the full trial, rather than deciding the action. The judge said reputational damage could not be adequately addressed by damages if the investigation proceeded and the principal was dismissed. Although the process was disruptive to the school, he considered the balance of convenience favoured an injunction pending trial. He also said an early trial was desirable and made orders concerning delivery of pleadings.