Larkin v Dublin City Council

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMs. Justice Clark
Judgment Date07 December 2007
Neutral Citation[2007] IEHC 416
Docket Number[2006 No. 3870P]
CourtHigh Court
Date07 December 2007

[2007] IEHC 416

THE HIGH COURT

RECORD NO. No. 3870 P/2006
Larkin v Dublin City Council

BETWEEN

DAVID LARKIN
APPLICANT

AND

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
RESPONDENT

GLENCAR EXPLORATION PLC v MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL 2002 1 IR 84

DEVLIN & DEVLIN v NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL UNREP SUPREME 14.11.2007 2007 IESC 50

K (D) v CROWLEY UNREP ABBOTT 29.7.2005 2005 IEHC 375

MCGRATH v TRINTECH TECHNOLOGIES LTD & TRINTECH GROUP PLC 2005 4 IR 382 2005 ELR 49 2004/35/8005

CARROLL v BUS ATHA CLIATH (DUBLIN BUS) 2005 4 IR 184 2005 ELR 192 2004 6 1392

KELLY v HENNESSY 1995 3 IR 253 1996 1 ILRM 321

FLETCHER v COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS IN IRELAND 2003 1 IR 465 2003 2 ILRM 94 2003 ELR 117

David Larkin v. Dublin City Council
1

David Larkin, the plaintiff makes an unusual case. He is a full time fireman attached to a busy city fire station. His father was a very senior fire officer and his only ambition in life was to follow in his father's footsteps. To move up the ranks in the fire service it is necessary to accumulate 7 years experience to be eligible to compete for a limited number of places for the position as sub officer. The successful candidates then form a pool from which sub-officers are drawn over the next two years or so. There is no other way to move up the ranks in the fire service. Every promotion starts from the position of sub officer so understandably, the places are very sought after and competition is keen. The competitions are held every three to five years with the number of candidates far exceeding the number of places available. The successful candidates are feted by other firemen in the station who are generally aware of the identity of those who succeed and those who fail to be considered as sub officer.

2

The plaintiff had suffered what he described as a setback in his personal life in that his marriage had broken down and his wife had gone abroad taking their only child to live with her. His access to this child was consequently limited by the very considerable distance between the two households. He had previously applied for the sub-officer competition but had been unsuccessful. It meant a great deal to him to become a sub officer.

3

In 2002 a competition was announced. There were approximately 160 applicants for 50 places. The plaintiff and two colleagues from the same station entered the very competitive process. They first obtained a study pack for home study and then engaged in a junior officer training course which lasted 13 months. They sat a written exam and were then assessed on the training course, their general experience, the written exam and their station performance. The points for each component of that assessment were notified to each candidate by letter and they then applied to be considered for interview.

4

Obviously candidates with high assessments before interview have an advantage as points are accumulated and those with the highest marks make the cut. Exam results which were produced show quite small differences between the points achieved by the first successful candidate at the top of the list and the first candidate declared unsuccessful.

5

On 16 th. July the plaintiff was notified by phone that he had been successful and was included in the panel of the first 50 highest achievers. Another colleague, Ken Murray also received the good news while the third candidate Michael Moylan was told that he was unsuccessful. The Plaintiff was thrilled with his success and shared this good news with friends, colleagues and family. News of the results became common knowledge in the station. On the following Tuesday, he was officially notified by letter of his successful result. He felt elated and enjoyed a sense of personal professional achievement

6

Two days later, rumours circulated in the fire station that two candidates had been removed for the list of successful applicants. Michael Moylan gave evidence that he received a phone call that day to say that a mistake had been made and that he had in fact been successful and would be included in the new panel of sub officers. On Friday, the following day, the plaintiff and his colleague Ken Murray were called into a meeting with the station third officer and the communications officer. They immediately suspected the worst. At the meeting, it was explained to them that a mistake had been made in the calculation of the points and that a recalculation and correction of the error now meant that they were not properly included in the fifty successful candidates. Mr. Kenny the third officer apologized for the mistake. The plaintiff was shocked and stunned by this information. He said he felt humiliated. His upset and disappointment were immediately visible and Mr. Kenny offered him time off to recover from the disappointment and organized for counseling to be made immediately available.

7

The plaintiff was so upset and distressed that he was unable to complete his shift and left work. He remained out of work on full pay for a period of six months. The fire service treated his absence as equating to accident leave and he suffered no financial consequences during his absence.

8

His evidence was that he had to stay away from the embarrassment of meeting with his colleagues. He could not face the questioning or the ribbing. He attended his GP who described his quite understandable upset and disappointment at the events which occurred and diagnosed an acute stress reaction. He was not referred to any specialist and in particular he was not referred to a psychiatrist. No medication of any kind was prescribed and apart from 5 or 6 sessions with the station counselor he did not attend for any therapeutic treatments.

9

His employers offered him an unqualified apology in writing and offered an ex gratia payment of €5,000 for the blunder which occurred. The Plaintiff gave evidence that he felt that this offer was an insult and an attempt to sweep their mistake and his disappointment under the carpet. He felt that the appropriate remedy was to extend the pool to include the two disappointed applicants. This he said would have cost nothing as they would not receive their increased salary until actually put into position as sub officers. This was not done by the Fire Service and the offer of €5,000 was not increased and was never taken up by the plaintiff.

10

For much of the 6 months that he remained away from work, the plaintiff lived in a house which he was renovating and carried out repairs to that house. His girlfriend joined him at weekends and he was able to enjoy...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Christopher Walter and Another v Crossan Homes Ltd and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 24 July 2014
    ...v RAWSON 2004 3 IR 1 2003/30/7110 MITCHELL v MULVEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD UNREP HOGAN 2.6.2014 2014 IEHC 37 LARKIN v DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL 2008 1 IR 391 2007/34/6982 2007 IEHC 416 HEGARTY v MERCY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CORK UNREP IRVINE 25.11.2011 2011/25/6583 2011 IEHC 435 KELLY v HENNESSY 1995 3 ......
  • Keeve v Health Service Executive
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 13 February 2019
    ...short of psychiatric illness, and reliance is placed on the decisions of Clarke J. (as he then was) in Larkin v. Dublin City Council [2008] 1 I.R. 391 and Irvine J. in Hegarty v. Mercy University Hospital Cork [2011] IEHC 435. The defendants also rely on dicta in Walter v. Crossan [2014]......
  • Ewaen Fred Ogieriakhi v Minister for Justice and Equality and Others (No.2)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 22 December 2014
    ...2013 IEHC 127 DEVLIN v NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL 2008 2 IR 222 2008 1 ILRM 401 2007/13/2739 2007 IESC 50 LARKIN v DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL 2008 1 IR 391 2007/34/6982 2007 IEHC 416 WALTER & RODRIGUEZ v CROSSAN HOMES LTD & ORS UNREP HOGAN 24.7.2014 2014 IEHC 377 COX v IRELAND & AG 1992 2 IR 5......
  • Murphy v Callinan
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 30 November 2018
    ...to person, requires proof of damage. Such requirement is demonstrated in the judgment of Clark J. in Larkin v. Dublin City Council [2008] 1 I.R. 391…. A person seeking compensation arising from a breach of statutory duty under an Act must establish that the loss or damage that such person ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

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