Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court dismisses appeal from High Court refusal of relief by way of judicial review of a school board of management requirement that a teacher be medically assessed by an independent psychiatrist before returning to work.
McKechnie J (nem diss): judicial review - employment law - education law - allegation by appellant during course of her employment as teacher with respondent of incidents of bullying and harassment perpetrated by principal who was also chairperson of board of management of school - appellant on sick leave - return to work based on department circular requiring appellant to submit to independent medical assessment - rules for national schools 1965 as amended - appellant referred to medical doctor chosen by principal - documentation detailing bullying claims sent by principal to medical doctor - whether Minister acted as co-defendant with school in perpetrating wrongs against appellant - whether legal ground against Minister in judicial review proceedings properly established on the facts - whether clause of department circular allowing the board of management to request their own medical advisor to nominate a specialist for the appellant to be referred to for assessment could be invoked - private law - public law - whether appellant has established the existence of an improper motive on part of the respondents in submitting her for a mandatory medical assessment - whether High Court correct in finding that respondent was correct to have 'concerns' relating to stress experienced by the appellant - offer by respondent to provide independent referral of appellant to another medical specialist decisive.
"...in my view the offer communicated by the Board but rejected by the appellant in the correspondence which took place between the 26th May, 2006 and the 19th July, 2006 is decisive as to the appeal’s outcome. It will be recalled that in the sequence of correspondence above outlined (paras. 27 to 29 inclusive supra), the Board agreed to stand down Dr. Mohan and to ask the local medical advisor to nominate a different specialist for the referral. Dr. Mahony did so and suggested Dr. Lawlor, who agreed to so act. Apart from objecting in principle to any referral, a position which for the reasons above given was not sustainable, this accords with Mrs. Fitzpatrick’s interpretation of Clause 7.3 of the Circular. Therefore, in this regard her complaints had been responded to and met."
MacMenamin J (concurring): animosity between litigants - long running dispute - allegations of conspiracy by defendant against plaintiff regarding her return to work after long absence - potential for alternative dispute resolution not exhausted - mediation.
Denham CJ (concurring): 42 separate grounds - proper interpretation of clause 7.3 of Department of Education Primary Circular 10/05 of the Rules of National Schools - clause since superseded - 7 years since leave to apply for judicial review granted - plaintiff since re-employed in a different school as teacher - circular related to new sick leave scheme in primary schools - plaintiff alleges board did not have bona fide concerns to require her to undergo a medical assessment - threat of litigation - whether concerns bona fide - onus of proof on appellant - whether board failed to comply with provisions contained within circular - High Court deemed question of proposed medical assessment by board's medical advisor moot - issues of fairness surrounding the proposed appointment of new doctor moot - affirmed - appellant failed to reply to letter from board proposing an independent assessment with alternative doctor - application to High Court for judicial review instead - no error in judgment of High Court.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.