The High Court has refused an application by a registered teacher, identified as MP, for costs against the Teaching Council after it decided not to pursue an application to suspend his teaching registration.
In a judgment delivered on 15 December 2017, Mr Justice Kelly said the ordinary rule that costs follow the event did not apply to the Council’s use of its statutory regulatory powers. He held that an order against the Council would require evidence that its application had been improperly brought. He found no such evidence.
The Council had applied under section 47 of the Teaching Council Acts 2001–2015 for an order suspending MP’s registration while complaints about his conduct were investigated. The complaints arose from allegations by two students, referred to as Student A and Student B. The judgment records that Student A alleged a sexual advance and said he and Student B had been taken to MP’s private home on several occasions. Both students made allegations involving alcohol and cannabis. These were allegations, not findings by the High Court.
MP’s employer had held a disciplinary hearing in December 2016. It found four of seven allegations substantiated and amounting to gross misconduct, did not uphold one, and made no finding on two because of insufficient information. MP was dismissed. The judgment does not set out the disciplinary allegations in full.
The Council began its High Court proceedings in April 2017. At a hearing in May, MP gave an undertaking to the court not to teach or seek teaching work in any school in Ireland or another EU member state until further order. The court accepted the undertaking. It also ruled that the Council could not notify MP’s former employer of its terms. The Council gave a separate undertaking about advance notice and later notification if it decided to inform the National Vetting Bureau under the 2012 Act.
The Council later tried to secure the students’ participation in its inquiry, but both declined. It accepted that the most serious complaints could not be pursued without them. MP indicated he would not continue his undertaking, and the Council said it would not seek a suspension order. It did not seek costs from MP; he sought the costs of the proceedings from the Council.
Justice Kelly rejected MP’s criticisms that the Council had acted too quickly, should have accepted an undertaking offered to it, sought overly broad relief, or delayed in contacting the students. He said the Council had acted properly in stopping its suspension application once the students’ absence meant the most serious complaints could not be investigated. Even if ordinary costs rules applied, he would not have awarded costs to MP.