Garrahy v Bord na gCon

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMR. JUSTICE O'HIGGINS
Judgment Date14 February 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] IEHC 147
CourtHigh Court
Docket Number[2001 No. 16253 P]
Date14 February 2002

[2002] IEHC 147

THE HIGH COURT

Record No. 2001/16253P
GARRAHY v. BORD NA GCON
DUBLIN
MR. JOHN GARRAHY
Plaintiff
-v-
BORD NA gCON
Defendants

Citations:

GREYHOUND INDUSTRY ACT 1958 S43(1)

RAFFERTY V BUS EIREANN 1997 2 IR 424

HARKINS V SHANNON FOYNES PORT CO 2001 ELR 75

FERRIS V WARD 1998 2 IR 194

FOLEY V AER LINGUS GROUP PLC 2001 ELR 193

D(T) & ORS V MIN FOR EDUCATION UNREP 17.12.2001 2001/5/1050

HOWARD V UCC 2001 ELR 8

REYNOLDS V MALOCCO 1999 2 IR 203 ELR 274 2002

CAMPUS OIL V MIN FOR INDUSTRY (NO 2) 1983 IR 88

AMERICAN CYANAMID V ETHICON LTD 1975 AC 396

COULSON V COULSON 1887 3 TLR 846

SINCLAIR V GOGARTY 1937 IR 377

BONNARD V PERRYMAN 1891 2 CH 269

SHEPHERD HOMES LTD V SANDHAM 1971 CH 340

REDLAND BRICKS LTD V MORRIS 1970 AC 652

FENNELLY V ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI SPA 1985 3 ILT 73

BOLAND V PHOENIX SHANNON PLC 1997 ELR 113

PHELAN V BIC (IRL) LTD 1997 ELR 208

HARTE V KELLY 1997 ELR 125

LONERGAN V SALTER-TOWNSHEND 2000 ELR 15

MOORE V XNET INFORMATION SYSTEM LTD 2002 2 ILRM 278

JOHNSON V UNISYS LTD 1999 AER 854

SMITH & ORS V INNER LONDON EDUCATION AUTHORITY 1978 1 AER 411

BYRNE & BINCHY ANNUAL REVIEW OF IRISH LAW 1998 325–326

SZABO V ESAT DIGIFONE LTD 1998 2 ILRM 102

AG V MANCHESTER CORP 1891–1894 AER 1196

BOSWELL, AG V RATHMINES & PEMBROKE JOINT HOSPITAL BOARD 1904 IR 161

SPRY EQUITABLE REMEDIES 4ED 459

CAYNE V GLOBAL NATURAL RESOURCES 1984 1 AER 225

Synopsis:

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Interlocutory injunction

Whether injunction mandatory or prohibitory in nature - Principles to be applied to grant of quia timet injunction - Whether prohibitory injunction should be granted pending trial of action - Factors to be taken into consideration - Whether serious issue to be tried - Whether damages adequate remedy - Whether balance of convenience favoured granting of injunction - Whether same principles apply to public bodies (2001/16253) - O'Higgins J - 14/02/2002)

Garrahy v Bord na Gcon - [2002] 3 IR 566

Facts: the plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the defendant from employing another person in the same position occupied by the plaintiff pending the trial of the action. The plaintiff alleged that there had been an ongoing campaign by the defendant to exclude, humiliate and embarrass him in front of the staff of Bord na gCon and that the attempt by the defendant to employ a full-time regulation manager was part of that campaign to oust the plaintiff from his position. The defendant argued that, as a public body, the normal criteria to be applied for injunctive relief did not apply to it as there was a public interest involved. Moreover, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff was seeking a mandatory quia timet injunction, although couched in terms of a prohibitory injunction.

Held by O'Higgins J in granting the injunction sought that it was no function of the court at the interlocutory stage to adjudicate on the strength or the merits of the case and that there was a fair issue to be tried as to whether the employment of a person as a full-time regulation manager would constitute a breach of the plaintiff's contract of employment and whether the proposed appointment of a full-time manager was a manifestation of the victimisation, harassment, intimidation and sidelining that the plaintiff alleged. Secondly, the court had to be satisfied, not that damages were not an adequate remedy, but that there was a doubt as to whether damages would be an adequate remedy and in that respect he was satisfied that damages would not appear to be an adequate remedy. The injunction sought was not mandatory in nature, but was prohibitory. There would be no practical difficulty of overseeing the injunction or of enforcing a specific performance. There was no difference in the principles to be applied to interlocutory quia timet injunctions and any other kind of interlocutory injunction. Nor was he prepared to hold that different criteria than the normal ones for interlocutory injunctive relief applied to public bodies such as the defendant. Finally, the balance of convenience was in favour of granting the injunction as if the plaintiff won his case he would be left with the situation where the defendant's wrong doing would have accrued to their benefit, as they would have got the new person in place.

1

MR. JUSTICE O'HIGGINS DELIVERED ON THURSDAY, 14th FEBRUARY 2002

2

I hereby certify the following to be a true and accurate transcript of my shorthand notes in the above-named action.

APPEARANCES

For the PLAINTIFF:

MR. J. PUNCH S.C.

MR. M. PURTELL B.L.

Instructed by:

BCM HANBY WALLACE

1 HIGH STREET

DUBLIN 8.

For the DEFENDANT:

MR. M. HAYDEN S.C.

MR. R. HORAN B.L.

Instructed by:

MICHAEL GLYNN & CO.

CECIL HOUSE

6 LOWER CECIL STREET

LIMERICK

3

COPYRIGHT:- Transcripts are the work of Gwen Malone Stenography Services and they must not be photocopied or reproduced in any manner or supplied or loaned by an appellant to a respondent or to any other party without written permission of Gwen Malone Stenography Services.

MR. JUSTICE O'HIGGINS:

The Plaintiff seeks an

interlocutory injunction

4

in the following circumstances. In or about May 1995 the Plaintiff replied to an advertisement seeking the position of Regulation Manager with Bord na gCon, the Defendant in this case. In September 1995 the Plaintiff was offered the position. Following negotiations he accepted the position on a one year fixed term contract. He agreed to work five mornings per week and to show the flexibility necessary to perform the required duties for an agreed salary of £25,000. He took up the position in March 1996. His one year contract was subsequently extended for a further period of one year and after that he was made permanent in his position but still part-time.

5

After some time in the position, however, following the appointment of Mr. Michael Field, as Chief Executive, the Plaintiff maintains that he began to experience difficulties at work. The difficulties experienced by the Plaintiff are set out in great detail in affidavits sworn on 5th November, 1st December and 12th December 2001. It is not necessary here to set out the claims in detail, still less to adjudicate on them. They include, however:

6

(a) Allegations that Mr. Field, the Chief Executive, and Mr. Paschal Taggart, the Chairman of the Board, took as personal affronts matters which in effect were merely professional disagreements.

7

(b) Allegations that remarks were made that he took to mean that he should disassociate himself from the then Chief Executive, Mr. Séan Collins, and the then Financial Controller, Mr. Michael Russel.

8

(c) In the Spring 1998 that Mr. Taggart without preamble requested that he resign and stated inter alia that it would be best if he vacated his position at a time of his own choosing but, in any event, in a matter of months.

9

(d) Some time later in 1999 that he was being excluded and sidelined from the senior management team which ran the Board on a day to day basis.

10

(e) That he received phone calls from a member of the Board ordering that a named candidate for a post who, in the view of the interview panel, did not merit inclusion in the final round of interviews was to be included in such round and was told by that Board member that the Chairman, Mr. Taggart, had ordered this be done. This the Plaintiff considered "just one more example of the continuous interference, undermining and intimidation" of him by Mr. Taggart, his agents and servants.

11

(f) Allegations that on two occasions he was pointedly and hurtfully excluded from public praise by the Chairman and such public exclusion left him embarrassed and humiliated.

12

(f) The Chief Executive "deliberately refused and neglected to address his remuneration in the hope that he would resign from his position with the Board".

13

(g) on 7th July 1999, Mr. Field suddenly and without warning raised the Plaintiff's position as Regulation Manager and stated that "they felt that they needed someone full-time as Regulation Manager" but refused to name any persons when the Plaintiff asked him who they were. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges that although he asked twice if the "they" to whom Mr. Field referred could provide any examples of where the Plaintiff's non-full-time position had exposed or inconvenienced the Defendant in any way, Mr. Field refused to answer these questions.

14

(h) When an Australian fellow veterinary surgeon and Plaintiff's counterpart in the Australian Greyhound Racing Organisation came to Ireland in his official capacity and had several meetings with officers of the Board, the Plaintiff was excluded by Mr. Field.

15

(i) At 10:10a.m. on 27th September 1999 he was handed a letter, dated 22nd September, giving him an ultimatum; either within four days to accept a full-time position at an annual salary of £35,000 and to confirm acceptance by 1st October 1999, or to resign his post no later than 31st December 1999. The Plaintiff considered this "an orchestrated effort by Mr. Taggart and Mr. Field to force him out of the Board".

16

(j) The proposal to impose on the Plaintiff an additional role for the Plaintiff to be "the first line of action in administering fines and penalties", an issue on which he had not been consulted.

17

(k) Abuse allegedly screamed at the Plaintiff by the Chairman of the Board and his ejectment from a Board meeting in consequence of which the Plaintiff alleges he became the subject of ridicule and an object of derision.

18

(l) An allegation that Mr. Field sought to "embarrass and belittle the Plaintiff" by requesting him to respond to a question concerning what had transpired at the meeting from which he had been expelled.

19

(m) An attempt to exclude him from a further Board meeting of 21st January 2001 which, when the Plaintiff requested that his exclusion be put in writing, the exclusion was not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Evans v IRFB Services (Ireland) Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 11 April 2005
    ... ... InGarrahy v. Bord na gCon (2003) ELR 274 O'Higgins J. dealt with an application for an interlocutory injunction in ... On the basis of Garrahy and Rafferty I am satisfied that it is at least arguable that a sufficiently radical alteration in ... ...
  • Becker v St. Dominic's Secondary School
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 15 April 2005
    ...Evans v. I.R.F.B. Services (Ireland) Ltd. [2005] IEHC 107 (Unreported, High Court, Clarke J., 11th April, 2005) Garrahy v. Bord na gCon [2002] 3 I.R. 566; (2003) E.L.R. 274. Martin v. Nationwide Building Society [2001] 1 I.R. 228; [1999] E.L.R. 241. Reynolds v. Malocco [1999] 2 I.R. 203; [1......
  • Fanning v Public Appointments Service and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 16 October 2015
    ...address the issue of the balance of convenience. In that regard, while I acknowledge, as O'Higgins J. did in Garrahy v. Bord nag Con [2002] 3 I.R. 566 (at 579), that the test for obtaining interlocutory relief in relation to public bodies (and, in particular, the threshold test of a fair qu......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT