Buckley v University College Cork
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice O'Regan |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] IEHC 270 |
| Docket Number | [2016 No. 2699 P] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 20 April 2016 |
[2016] IEHC 270
THE HIGH COURT
O'Regan J.
[2016 No. 2699 P]
Education – Appointments – Interlocutory Injunction – Bias – Balance of convenience – Least risk of injustice
Facts: The plaintiff has filed certain injunctive and mandatory reliefs against the defendant for not selecting the plaintiff for the post of professor as advertised by the defendant. The plaintiff contended that a certain named person involved in the selection committee had demonstrated bias against her. The defendant contended that the selection process was conducted in a fair and an unbiased manner and the plaintiff was not selected as she had failed to meet the set criteria.
Ms. Justice O'Regan refused to grant the desired reliefs to the plaintiff. The Court held that in an application for an interlocutory injunction, unless the material presented before the Court failed to disclose that the plaintiff had real chance of succeeding in her claim for permanent injunction, the Court should determine as to where the balance of convenience lay. The Court found that in the present case, there was no evidence to support the allegations of bias as the named person had influenced the opinions of the two external members of the committee who made the decision of not selecting the plaintiff to the contended post. The Court, while weighing the balance of justice, held that no injustice would be caused to the plaintiff by refusal of the relief as the selection process which was initiated in the previous year was at the stage of completion.
This matter comes before the court on foot of a Notice of Motion of the 21st March, 2016, of the plaintiff wherein she seeks a total of eight injunctive reliefs, four of which are phrased as prohibitory orders and four of which are phrased as mandatory orders. Aside from the notice of motion and affidavits in support and affidavits in resisting the relief claimed, the only other current pleading is a Plenary Summons dated the 24th March, 2016, wherein the plaintiff seeks all the reliefs sought in the Notice of Motion aforesaid and in addition seeks two declaratory orders.
The matter was heard on affidavit on the 1st April, 2016, and resumed and concluded on the 5th April, 2016.
In or about December, 2015 the defendant advertised 10 professorial appointments to Cork University Business School (CUBS) by way of a Candidate Information Booklet.
The closing date for applications was the 15th February, 2016. Although initially it appeared that two hundred and fifty two candidates applied, it transpired that in fact two hundred and sixty two candidates applied, some of whom applied for more than one position. Ultimately two candidates withdrew. Thirty six candidates have been shortlisted for interview, ten of whom are internal to UCC and the balance of whom are external candidates. The plaintiff was not shortlisted and was advised of this fact on the 15th March, 2016, and subsequently was advised as to the reasons why she was not shortlisted on the 21st March, 2016.
The plaintiff has filed three separate affidavits in support of her application and the defendant, in resisting the application of the plaintiff, has filed two affidavits of Dr. Murphy, President of UCC, two affidavits of Prof. Kieran Murphy, two affidavits of Prof. Michael Ward, two affidavits of Susan O'Callaghan, one affidavit of Prof. Kilkelly, one affidavit of Caroline Fennell and one affidavit of Prof. Mulally.
The parties' respective positions might, in general terms, be summarised under the following respective paragraphs:
The plaintiff's position might be summarised as follows:-
i. Prof. Murphy has demonstrated a bias against the plaintiff and should not therefore have been involved in the selection committee.
ii. The plaintiff alluded to the possibility that Prof. Ward should not have been involved in the selection committee. However, this argument does not appear to have been developed other than identifying the fact that some candidates in Prof. Ward's department have been shortlisted.
iii. The plaintiff had been given various assurances over the years when taking up various posts that future promotional prospects would not be placed at risk.
iv. In written submissions the plaintiff suggests some contractual entitlement, however, this was not developed either in oral submissions or in affidavit, save as mentioned at para. 9(iv) hereof, and the plaintiff's contract of employment was not open to the Court.
v. The selection committee did not adhere to the relevant regulations.
vi. A failure to shortlist the plaintiff prima facie indicates that the process was flawed.
vii. The plaintiff has met the criteria and benchmark for appointment to the position of Professor (Scale II).
viii. By refusing to shortlist the plaintiff, the defendant has caused the plaintiff irreparable harm which cannot be compensated in monetary terms.
ix. The balance of convenience favours the granting of injunctive relief.
The defendant's position might be generally summarised as follows:-
i. By reason of a claim for mandatory injunctive relief, the threshold of proof required by the plaintiff to secure the relevant relief is far greater, although in any event it is asserted that the plaintiff has not achieved the threshold to secure either mandatory or prohibitive relief.
ii. The selection process was conducted in accordance with regulations.
iii. The selection process was conducted fairly and in an unbiased manner.
iv. To halt the selection process at this time would cause irreparable harm to the defendant including its reputation both nationally and internationally.
v. The balance of convenience favours the refusal of the relief sought.
The following significant events occurred:
i. Between September 1998 and June 2003, and since February 2012 the plaintiff has been, and is the Head of the Department of Management and Marketing.
ii. In or about May 2011, on the encouragement of Prof. Lynch Fannon, the plaintiff applied for and secured the role of Director of the MBA Executive, notwithstanding that the plaintiff was concerned that the extra workload would preclude her from carrying out the level of research previously undertaken (see para.26 of the plaintiff's affidavit of 24th March 2016).
iii. In or about January 2013 (see para.21 of the plaintiff's affidavit of 24th March, 2016) the plaintiff became a member of the Business Restructure Implementation Group. At that time she felt that by being a member she was risking future promotional opportunities, however, she asserts that she was assured by Prof. Ward and Prof. Lynch Fanning that her concerns were unfounded.
iv. During the course of 2014, an internal promotional process within UCC for Professor (Scale II) was available to, but not pursued by, the plaintiff. By December 2014 (see para.21 of the affidavit aforesaid), heads of agreement were finalised by the group aforesaid, at which time the plaintiff became involved in negotiating rules for CUBS. In negotiating the rules the plaintiff felt that there was professional risk for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Case Number: ADJ-00002790. Workplace Relations Commission
...to ensure that the selection process was not unfair to the applicant or was not manifestly irrational in the result Joan Buckley V UCC [2016] IEHC 270 CIT and a Worker LCR 21315The Respondent concluded that the Interview Board in the present case had satisfied the requirements set down in t......