Brady v Board of Management of Castleblayney Infant National School and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice McDermott |
| Judgment Date | 20 August 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] IEHC 554 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 20 August 2015 |
[2015] IEHC 554
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
Employment – Education – The Education Act 1998 – Appointment of Principal – Constitution of Board and Rules of Procedure 2011 – Certiorari – Fair procedures
Facts: The plaintiff sought an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the first named respondent approving the appointment of the notice party as principal and the second named respondent's decision approving the decision of the first named respondent. The plaintiff also sought an order remitting the matter of selection of principal to the first named respondent. The plaintiff alleged bias and unfairness in the selection of the notice party as the principal of the school on the ground that she was known to the chairperson.
Mr. Justice McDermott refused to grant an order of certiorari for quashing the decision of the first named respondent. The Court observed that the selection procedure adopted by the first named respondent was appropriate and fair as it took into account all the relevant experience and qualifications given under the Education Act 1998. The Court found that the impugned decision was arrived at after taking the opinion of qualified independent assessors and it had no bearing on the fact that the notice party was known to the chairperson of the first named respondent. The Court held that it was not bound to go into the merits of the case and the only function it had was to see whether the impugned decision was fundamentally flawed.
1. The applicant has thirty-six years of service as a teacher in Castleblayney Infant National School and is the Deputy Principal since 2010. The notice party was appointed as principal of the school on the 8 th February, 2015, following a decision of the first named respondent (the Board). The second named respondent (the Patron) indicated his consent to the appointment on the 9 th February, 2015.
2. The applicant is a failed candidate in the competition for appointment as principal and sought and was granted leave to challenge the notice party's appointment (Eagar J.) on the grounds set out in paragraph E of the original statement of grounds dated the 27 th March, 2015. This included liberty to amend the grounds relied upon as set out in a short amended statement of grounds. The proposed amendment related to the manner in which marks were awarded by the Chairperson of the Board for the applicant's Irish language proficiency in the selection process. An injunction was granted restraining the taking of any further steps in the appointment of the notice party or exercising her role as principal, with the exception of payment of her salary.
3. The school is a coeducational school catering for pupils from junior infants to first class under the patronage of the second respondent the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clogher. There are one hundred and eighty-three pupils and twelve teachers at the school. Affidavits were filed on behalf of the applicant from a number of board members expressing dissatisfaction with the procedures followed by the Board, and the Selection Board which had been appointed by the Board to interview the various candidates and conduct the selection process leading to the appointment. This dissatisfaction extends to the role of the Chairperson of the Board at various stages of the competition, the selection process and the consideration of the appointment of the notice party. The initial application was grounded upon the affidavits of the applicant and the former principal of the school dated 25 th March, 2015. An amended statement of grounds was filed on the 31 st March, 2015 pursuant to the order granting leave. A notice of motion on behalf of the notice party issued on the 31 st March, 2015 seeking an earlier return date than 12 th May, 2015 which had originally been set. A further motion seeking liberty to amend the grounds to include a challenge to the decision based upon alleged objective bias issued on the 18 th May, 2015 which was adjourned to the hearing of the action. A further application was made in the course of the hearing seeking liberty to issue and serve a notice of motion to amend the grounds based upon inter alia a claim that the decision to recommend the Notice Party for appointment as principal was unreasonable and irrational. This was refused in an extempore judgment delivered on the 8 th June 2015. On the same date the court refused two other applications to cross-examine Mr. Peter McMahon and discovery brought by the applicant.
4. The notice party was due to take up her position as principal on the 8 th April, 2015. She was informed that her application was successful on the 8 th February by the Chairman of the Board, Mr. McMahon, and this was followed by a formal letter of offer on 10 th February which she accepted in writing. She then gave notice of termination of her contract to her employers, Scoil Mhuire na mBuachaillí where she was employed on a fixed term contract until August 2015.
5. On the 2 nd April, 2015 a consent order was made (Stewart J) which noted that the notice party's appointment as principal remained in place and that she would be paid her salary and allowances pending the determination of the proceedings. The injunction was extended by consent and it was agreed that another teacher would be appointed as the acting principal in the meantime. A commencement date for the hearing of the action was set for the 20 th May, 2015. On the 2 nd April, three further affidavits were sworn, one from the applicant, (a second affidavit), one from the notice party (her second) and one from Ms. Ann Lynn solicitor, concerning aspects of service and correspondence.
6. The matter for listed for mention on the 13 th May. A statement of opposition was filed on the 12 th May grounded on the affidavit of the Chairman of the Board, Mr. McMahon sworn on the 8 th May together with a short affidavit of the patron.
7. The case was at that time defined by the pleadings and affidavits which had been filed including the first amended statement of grounds. The applicant sought to quash the board's decision approving the appointment of the notice party as principal and the patron's decision approving the Boards decision and an order remitting the matter of the selection of a principal to the Board for the purpose of choosing a new selection panel pursuant to the relevant statutory rules. A number of declarations were also sought; these are ancillary to the main relief claimed which is an order of certiorari.
8. The school is managed by the board which comprises eight members. They were at the time the former principal Ms. Sheila Donnelly, Ms. Mary Duffy, a teacher at the school, Mr. Thomas Hanratty, retired publican and Ms. Demelza McKee, parents' nominees and Ms. Regina MacCormack (the treasurer), who have sworn affidavits in the proceedings on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Peter McMahon, a businessman was appointed by the patron and is chairman of the board. Mr. Jonnie Redmond and Ms. Helen Moore are both community nominees to the board.
9. In January, 2015, the chairman Mr. McMahon was advised by Ms. Donnelly that she intended to retire as principal in April. It became necessary to advertise and conduct a selection process for the appointment of a new principal. On the 8 th January, the post was advertised nationally on "educationposts.ie". Applicants were required to submit a completed application form to the school by 22 nd January, 2015. The commencement date for the new principal was stated to be 5 th April. The standard application form for "Primary Principalship" was to be completed by candidates.
10. Ms. Donnelly deposes that the board requested the chairman to seek a suitable candidate for the position who was (a) a suitably qualified teacher with relevant experience at junior level because of the nature of the school, (b) a candidate with experience of working with children with special education needs to cater for the mild to moderate class in the school and (c) a candidate with management experience. Though these points were said to have been highlighted as a matter of importance by the board to the chairman no issue was taken with the short form of advertisement placed on the 8 th January which does not refer to these criteria. A note of what is said to have transpired at the board meeting of the 7 th January, 2015 signed by Ms. MacCormack (the treasurer) but dated 14 th March, 2015 was submitted to the Court as "the minute" of that meeting. On the same date, an attempt was made to convene a board meeting concerning the appointment. The chairman attended the meeting but declined to recognise it as a valid board meeting on the basis of legal advice given. By that stage serious disagreements had emerged between board members, the chairman, the applicant and the patron as to the process employed in the appointment of Ms. Trehy as the new principal.
11. The board is duly established under section 14 of the Education Act 1998. Section 8(1) provides for the appointment of the patron of a primary school. Section 15(1) provides that:-
"(1) It shall be the duty of a board to manage the school on behalf of the patron and for the benefit of the students and their parents and to provide or cause to be provided an appropriate education for each student at the school for which that board has responsibility.
(2) A board shall perform the functions conferred on it and on a school by this Act and in carrying out its...
To continue reading
Request your trial