Dylan Evans v University College Cork

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Hogan
• Judgment Date: 08 November 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] IEHC 420
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2011] 11 JIC 0801
• Court: High Court
• Date: 08 November 2010

[2010] IEHC 420

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 750 J.R./2010]

Evans v University College Cork

BETWEEN

DYLAN EVANS

APPLICANT

AND

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK

RESPONDENT

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.2

PJ CARROLL & CO LTD v MIN FOR HEALTH & CHILDREN (NO.2) 2006 3 IR 431

FRAMUS LTD v CRH PLC 2004 2 IR 20

TWEED v PARADES CMSN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND 2007 1 AC 650

R v SECRETARY OF STATE EX PARTE HACKNEY LBC UNREP 29.7.1994

RSC O84 r25(1)

CARLOW KILKENNY RADIO LTD v BROADCASTING CMSN OF IRELAND 2003 3 IR 528

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Discovery

Judicial review - Scope of discovery - Whether ordinary discovery rules apply in judicial review applications - Circumstances where discovery necessary in judicial review proceedings - General non specific and unsubstantiated allegations of bad faith and bias in statement of grounds - Relevance of documents - Necessity for discovery - Relevance of pleadings to discovery - Whether tests of relevance and necessity satisfied - Parameters of case as pleaded - Whether range of documents which are relevant and necessary in judicial review matters inevitably limited - PJ Carroll & Co Ltd v Minister for Health and Children (No 2) [2006] IESC 36, [2006] 3 IR 431; Framus Ltd v CRH plc [2004] 2 IR 20 and Carlow Kilkenny Radio Ltd v Broadcasting Commission of Ireland [2003] 3 IR 528 applied ; Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland [2006] UKHL 53, [2007] 1 AC 650 not followed; R v Health Secretary, ex p Hackney LBC (Unrep, July 29, 1994) approved - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15), O 84, r 25(1) - Discovery refused (2010/750JR - Hogan J - 8/11/2010 - [2010] IEHC 420

Evans v University College Cork

Facts The respondent, following a complaint by a female employee concerning a research article, had the applicant monitored and supervised for a two year period. The head of the applicant's department also recommended against the applicant's establishment thereby impacting on his grant of long-term tenure and livelihood. The applicant had been granted leave to challenge these recommendations. The applicant claimed lack of fair procedures. His statements of grounds lacked details and the application before the court was discovery of documents.

Held by Hogan J in refusing the application on the grounds that the grounds advanced failed to satisfy the basic requirements for a discovery order that is where the tests of both relevance and necessity are satisfied. P.J. Carroll & Co. Ltd v Minister for Health and Children (No. 2) [2006] IESC 36; [2006] 3 IR 431 followed.

Reporter: BD

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Hogan delivered on the 8th day of November, 2010

2 1. The motion before the court raises, once again, the question of the ambit of discovery in judicial review proceedings. The applicant is a university lecturer in Behavioural Science in the School of Medicine, University College Cork. As a result of an encounter with a female colleague concerning a research article on November 2, 2009, a complaint was laid against him which was upheld. The University recommended as a result that his conduct be monitored and supervised for a two year period. In addition to this, the Head of School, Professor Kerins, recommended on April 29, 2010 against the applicant's establishment. Such a recommendation is, in effect, a recommendation against the grant of long-term tenure. These recommendations could plainly impact on the applicant's livelihood, as well, of course, as having implication for his constitutional right to a good name (Article 40.3.2).

3 2. The applicant has been granted leave to challenge these recommendations by way of judicial review. In both cases, the statement of grounds alleges a breach of fair procedures. So far as the recommendation concerning supervision and monitoring is concerned, the contention is made that the applicant was denied the opportunity make submissions in mitigation or to effect an internal appeal. The applicant further contends that the recommendation on establishment was arrived at in breach of fair procedures on the ground that the University had not given him an adequate opportunity to be heard as to the proposed reason for recommending against establishment.

4 3. The statement of grounds also alleges - in admittedly very general and nonspecific terms - that the University's actions were either taken in bad faith or gave rise to objective bias. No particulars at all of these...