Hallahan v Cork City Council

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Micheál O'Connell
• Judgment Date: 25 August 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 591
• Docket Number: 2026 No. 2544 P

Between

John Hallahan

Plaintiff

and

Cork City Council

Defendant

[2026] IEHC 591

2026 No. 2544 P

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Micheál O'Connell delivered on 25 August 2026

Introduction

1 . When the application to which this judgment pertains was first brought by Notice of Motion filed on 20 May 2026, the principal relief sought was, in substance, to restrain pending the trial of this action the transfer of the Plaintiff from his position as Head of Finance in the Defendant, Cork City Council, to a newly created position of Head of Cost Transformation.

2 . Since that time, the Defendant has confirmed that it no longer intends to transfer the Plaintiff as initially proposed. Instead, it decided to appoint (and has since appointed) to the role of Head of Cost Transformation the person previously selected to take over the Plaintiff's role as Head of Finance. However, it also proposes to reorganise its Finance Department and to create a new Department under the Head of Cost Transformation to which certain of the Plaintiff's functions as Head of Finance will be transferred.

3 . In that context, the Plaintiff pursues as a primary relief one of the additional reliefs sought in his Notice of Motion, that is to say, an order restraining the Defendant from assigning the Plaintiff's duties to any other person pending the trial of this action.

4 . For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought.

Principal facts

5 . The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant since 2010, having theretofore worked in the private sector. Having initially worked as a Management Accountant (Grade 8 on the public sector pay-scale), he was promoted to acting Head of Finance in 2015 and to Head of Finance in 2016. He has worked in that role since then. The Finance Department is termed a “directorate” within the Defendant, and its head is referred to as a “director”, although the court was advised that that terminology does not have a statutory basis.

6 . The Finance Department consists of 68 employees, including full—and part-time positions, working under the Plaintiff on public sector pay-scale grades 3–8. The functions of the Plaintiff and the Finance Department include the following:

• (a) Responsibility for the annual budget process of the Defendant (the Defendant emphasised and the Plaintiff agreed that the Chief Executive Officer has ultimate responsibility for the budget itself).

• (b) The preparation, implementation and ongoing review of the Defendant's finance plan.

• (c) Engaging with stakeholders, including elected members, in the prudent management of the Defendant's financial resources.

• (d) Sourcing of finance and formulation of financial arrangements in the context of partnerships, new funding ventures and public-private partnerships.

• (e) The appraisal of capital projects.

• (f) The delivery of value for money in pursuit of the Defendant's corporate objectives.

• (g) Ensuring adherence to accepted accounting standards and codes of practice.

• (h) A leadership/advisory role in ensuring the financial probity of the Defendant's organisation.

• (i) Duties with regard to the training and education of finance staff, creating and supporting a culture of taking responsibility for management of devolved resources, and other duties as assigned from time to time.

7 . The evidence indicated that the Finance Directorate accounts for approximately 16.6% of the overall budget of the Defendant, including pension payments, boundary compensation (on which I will say more below), insurances, rates bad debts, other bad debt write-offs, loan repayments and finance staff pay.

8 . The Plaintiff's contract of employment was in evidence, and much of the debate focussed on the following provisions:

“ 3 Position

You will be employed as Head of Finance in accordance with the qualifications and particulars of the post

Cork City Council reserves the right to alter the Department/Directorate to which you are assigned”

9 . As Head of Finance, the Plaintiff is a member of the Defendant's 12-person senior management team. The senior management team reports to the Chief Executive Officer of the Defendant.

10 . The Chief Executive Officer of the Defendant is Valerie O'Sullivan (“ the CEO”), who was appointed in October 2024, having immediately theretofore been employed by Cork County Council. The CEO was Chief Executive of Cork County Council for a 10-month period from September 2023 to June 2024.

11 . Under the Plaintiff, the Finance Department had reported a small surplus on its budget every year until 2025. In 2025, a deficit of just over €2.75 million was recorded for that year. The Plaintiff noted that this was less than 1% of the annual budget and contextualised the deficit by reference to two developments in particular. The first was an annual payment required to be made by the Defendant to Cork County Council arising from a boundary adjustment of their respective functional areas in 2020, which had increased more than anticipated due to the fact that it was index-linked at a time of high inflation. The second was the fiscal challenge presented by housing maintenance, one solution to which the Plaintiff saw in the implementation of recommendations made in an expert report obtained in 2024, which has not yet been implemented pending “ a radical and strategic overhaul of housing management” (to quote the CEO of the Defendant) although other steps were being taken to address the issue. The Defendant emphasised that the position had been deteriorating since 2020 (when there was an accumulated surplus of €11.3million, although the Plaintiff noted that the surplus was inflated that year by a reduction in costs due to the Covid pandemic), through to 2023 (when that surplus had fallen to €6.7million) to 2025 (when, following the budget deficit of that year, the Defendant carried a deficit of €1.87million), and the CEO testified that if the trend continued the Defendant would require intervention from Central Government.

12 . On 11 May 2026, the Plaintiff was asked to attend a meeting with the CEO and the Assistant Chief Executive Officer. The CEO advised that she was setting up a new position to be called the “Head of Cost Transformation”, and that she wanted the Plaintiff to assume that role. She provided the Plaintiff with a short memo addressed to the members of the senior management team advising of the establishment of the position.

13 . The memo began by noting the “ constant focus on our financial position” and the “ inclusion of cost savings measures as a key priority for [the senior management team]”, and stated that “ the current situation cannot continue.” Considerable attention was given in the memo to the urgency of creating the role and to the precarious financial position in which the Defendant found itself. The memo noted that the position of Head of Cost Transformation would be established on 18 May 2026 “ for an initial period of one year, subject to review.” The Head of Cost Transformation would report directly to the CEO and would work across all Departments to identify cost saving opportunities and to implement them “ at pace”. Such measures “ would come before Senior Management Team for information.” The memo also stated that the Head of Cost Transformation would present a draft programme to the senior management team by mid-June 2026 for adoption, after which the focus would immediately move to implementation. The penultimate paragraph of the memo provided:

“ This change will require a reset within the Finance function. Further details of this will issue as soon as I have met with Finance. I continue to review our structures to ensure alignment with our strategic goals. At this juncture, cost transformation is paramount and demands dedicated and focussed leadership.”

14 . The Plaintiff averred that, at the meeting on 11 May 2026, he expressed reluctance to be appointed to the role in question. He suggested two other people who might be better suited to the role (the CEO averred that the suggestion of two alternative candidates was made before his proposed appointment was notified to him, but little turns on that difference here). He averred that the CEO advised that neither of these was suitable for the role (although this was denied by the CEO in her first replying affidavit). The Plaintiff averred that he said to the CEO that he would have to think about it, but again the CEO disputed this, saying that her decision was already made and that she would not have agreed to his considering the matter.

15 . The senior management team was advised that the Plaintiff would assume the new role of Head of Cost Transformation function at its meeting of 12 May 2026. The Plaintiff did not comment on the matter at this meeting.

16 . Later on 12 May 2026, the CEO emailed the members of the senior management team advising that Mr Jeremy Canty would be appointed as Head of Finance to replace the Plaintiff for the ensuing one-year period. Mr Canty was a subordinate of the Plaintiff in the Finance Department, as a grade 8 officer with an assigned role of analysing costs. He had been an employee of Cork City Council since September 2025, having previously worked for Cork County Council as its acting Finance Director. He was one of the two persons suggested by the Plaintiff for the role of Head of Cost Transformation at the meeting with the CEO the previous day.

17 . The Plaintiff emailed the CEO shortly after and in response to her email. He noted that the change to his position was first mentioned the day before. He referred to it as “ a very significant change to [his] contracted role” and expressed surprise and disappointment before stating that, while he was considering the matter, he remained in his role as Head of Finance.

18 . The CEO responded promptly, stating that she had checked the Plaintiff's contract...