McGrath and O'Ruairc v Maynooth College

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'HIGGINS C.J.,KENNY J.,Henchy J.,GRIFFIN J.,PARKE J.
• Judgment Date: 01 November 1979
• Neutral Citation: 1978 WJSC-SC 3002
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: (32/1979)
• Date: 01 November 1979

McGRATH v. TRUSTEES OF MAYNOOTH

McGRATH and Ó RUAIRC

v.

THE TRUSTEES OF MAYNOOTH COLLEGE

1978 WJSC-SC 3002

O'Higgins C.J.

Henchy J.

Griffin J.

Kenny J.

Parke J.

(32/1979)

THE SUPREME COURT

1 JUDGMENT delivered the 1st day of November 1979by O'HIGGINS C.J.

The Issues

2 In these proceedings the Court is concerned with joint appeals by both Plaintiffs against the Judgment and Order of Mr. Justice Hamilton in the High Court and a cross-appeal by the Defendants against so much of the said Judgment and Order as found in favour of the first-named Plaintiff that he had not been validly removed from office and as awarded him damages and also against the failure of Mr. Justice Hamilton to award costs against the second-named Plaintiff. Both Plaintiffs were on the teaching staff of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, and, having been dismissed or removed from office by resolution of the Defendants, they have brought these proceedings seeking a declaration that the resolution was invalid. The issues which arise on this appeal are numerous. In the first place consideration must be given to the true statusandrole of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth (hereinafter referred to as Maynooth), having regard to the claim made by the Plaintiffs that the College Statutes, or those of them as are relied upon in these proceedings, are ultra vires the powers of the Defendants. There is also the question whether the procedures adopted by the Defendants in dismissing the Plaintiffs from their offices were correct under these Statutes, and if so, whether they were in violation of thePlaintiffs" rights under the Constitution. With particular reference to the second-named Plaintiff there is the question whether the Rescript of Laicisation, which he had received, obliged him to resign from his teaching post and if so whether such a requirement amounted to discrimination against him on the grounds of religious status, contrary to the Constitution. Generally, in relation to the proceedings brought under the College Statutes against the Plaintiffs, there is the question whether in the circumstances the Defendants acted bona fide or, on the contrary, maliciously and capriciously in doing what they did. Finally, on the Defendants" appeal.the question is raised whether on the evidence the trial Judge was entitled to hold that the first-named Plaintiff had been removed from his office for a reason or cause not disclosed to him.

What is Maynooth?

3 In the first place I propose to consider the true position or status of Maynooth, having regard to Irish law. While there have been numerous references in the transcript to the provisions of Canon Law this code cannot, in my view, affect the questions at issue, except in so far as its provisions are made relevant under our law. Such relevance could be established by contract or by statutory obligation in particular instances. In the absence of such, the law to be applied is the law ofIreland.

4 Maynooth was incorporated or founded pursuant to the provisions of an Act of the Irish Parliament, 35 Geo. III C. 21 entitled

"An Act for the better education of persons professing the Popish or Roman Catholic Religion".

5 The purpose of the Act was thus stated in the Preamble:

"Whereas, by the laws now in force in this kingdom, it is not lawful to endow any College or Seminary for the education exclusively of persons professing the Roman Catholic Religion, and it has now become expedient that a Seminary should be established for thatpurpose."

6 The Act went on to appoint Trustees who were authorised to set about the establishment of "one academy for the education only of persons professing the Roman Catholic Religion, to collect money for this purpose, to acquire land and to erect the necessary buildings." By section 3 the Trustees, inter alia, were given power "to make such bye-laws, rules, regulations and statutes for the government of the said academy ......... as to the trustees......... shall seem meet." The provisions of this Act were altered and enlarged by subsequent Acts. These were in turn wholly or partially repealed by the Statute 32 & 33 Vic. C. 42. The unrepealed portions of these later Acts gave the Trustees visitorial powers, incorporated them as a body politic and corporate under the name "The Trustees of the College of Maynooth" and provided that they could sue and be sued in that name. Following itsopening in 1800 both clerical and lay students were admitted to Maynooth as appears from the "Centenary History of Maynooth" to which both this Court and the High Court have been referred. In 1817 the admission of lay students was discontinued. From that year until 1967 Maynooth catered exclusively for clerical students, that is, for those who were studying for the priesthood. In 1896 Maynooth was constituted a Pontifical University by the Holy See under the title "Athenaeum S. Patricii Manutiae" with faculties of theology, canon law and philosophy. Following the establishment of the National University of Ireland, Maynooth was, in 1910, pursuant to the provisions of the Irish Universities Act 1908, declared to be a recognised college of the new University. In 1967 lay students were again admitted and their number now far exceeds that of clerical students. A State grant out of funds now administered by the Higher Education Authority is, and has been for some years, paid to Maynooth and this has been considerably augmented since the re-admission of lay students in 1967. Thisgrant is used for the payment of salaries of professors and teachers in such posts as those held by the two Plaintiffs.

7 Having regard to its statutory origins and to its development over what is now almost two centuries, the question is: what in essence is Maynooth? It is a recognised College of the National University of Ireland. This does not make it either a constituent College of that University nor, of course, a university in its own right. Recognition as a College of the National University merely means that because studies of a university type approved by the Governing Body of the National University of Ireland are therein pursued under teachers recognised by that Body, students pursuing such courses are eligible to receive degrees (Section 2(4) Irish Universities Act 1908). If such courses ceased to be approved or the teachers were no longer recognised, Maynooth would not cease to function. It would no longer be a recognised College of the National University of Ireland but this would not affect its statutory authorityand function as a place of education. This authority stems from the founding Statute of 1795 and not from any recognition, conceded or granted by the National University of Ireland. In precisely the same way, in my view, is Maynooth's position as a Pontifical University under cannon law irrelevant to its true and essential role under our law. If recognition as a Pontifical University were withdrawn, the prestige and reputation of Maynooth as a place of learning in the Catholic world would, no doubt, suffer. This would, however, in no way affect or restrict its right to exist and to teach. This right, which is Maynooth's essential raison d'être, is to be found, not in recognition as a Pontifical University, but in the provisions of our statute law under which it was established, incorporated and given authority, functions and duties.

Maynooth's Essential Role

8 In my view, therefore, one looks to these founding statutes in order to determine Maynooth's essentialfunctions and proper status. It is clear from the preamble to the Statute 35 Geo. III Ch.21 that it was founded as a "seminary". This word "seminary" derives from the Latin "seminarium" which means a seed plot, and has over the centuries been used to describe a place of education for a particular purpose in which persons of a particular class or destined for a particular profession are trained or produced. In particular, at least in these islands, the word "seminary" connotes a school, college or academy for the training of persons as priests in the Catholic Church. That such was the type of institution sought by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland when they presented their petition to the Lord Lieutenant prior to the passing of the 1795 Act, is reasonably clear. In this petition presented in 1794 the bishops asked for the "establishment of seminaries for the training of ecclesiastics destined to receive Holy Orders" (See History of Maynooth, p.98). The Act, recognising the need for a Catholic seminary in Ireland, authorised the establishment of "one academy for theeducation only of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion". Pursuant to this statutory authority, Maynooth opened in 1800 as an institution for the training of students aspiring to the priesthood and has over almost two hundred years continued to fulfil this function. I have no doubt that this is and continues to be Maynooth's essential role. Recognitions as a Pontifical University and as a College of the National University are honours which have added to Maynooth's prestige, reputation and standing but although they may conceal, they cannot alter Maynooth's true function and role. Such an alteration can only be brought about by a change in the law and no such change has takenplace.

The College Statutes

9 I turn now to consider the College Statutes, or rather those of them which appear to be relevant in these proceedings. These Statutes were adopted by the Defendants on the 2nd October 1962 in purported exercise of the power in that regard bestowed upon them by the Act of 1795. In Chapter I which comprises Statutes 1 to 17Maynooth is described and provision is made for its Governing Body, which is the Defendants, and for their meetings and functioning. The description of Maynooth is contained in the opening Statute and is asfollows:

"St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, is a major seminary for the education of...