MD (A minor suing by his father and next friend MD) v Board of Management of a secondary school (No.2)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Donnell C.J.,Woulfe J.,Hogan J.,Collins J.,Donnelly J.
• Judgment Date: 13 May 2024
• Neutral Citation: [2024] IESC 18
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: S:AP:IE:2023:000032

Between/

MD (A Minor Suing by His Father and Next Friend MD)

Applicant

and

Board of Management of a Secondary School (No.2)

Respondent

[2024] IESC 18

O'Donnell C.J.

Woulfe J.

Hogan J.

Collins J.

Donnelly J.

S:AP:IE:2023:000032

AN CHÚIRT UACHTARACH

THE SUPREME COURT

RULING of the Court as to costs delivered electronically on the 13 ^th day of May 2024

Introduction

1 . The Court has already delivered its judgment in a direct appeal from a decision of the High Court on 10 ^th April 2024: see MD v. Board of Management of a Secondary School[2024] IESC 11. In the wake of the separate judgments delivered by O'Donnell C.J., Hogan and Collins JJ. the Court invited the parties to make submissions in writing as to costs. We indicated that we would rule on the matter without the necessity for an oral hearing, save if such was considered to be necessary by the Court. Having deliberated on the matter, the Court does not think that an oral hearing is warranted and this, accordingly, is the ruling of the Court as to costs.

2 . While the full background to the appeal is set out in the various judgments of the Court, by way of summary it can be said that MD was a secondary school student in his Junior Certificate year at a particular secondary school. The School wished to expel MD in the wake of serious allegations which had been made against him qua pupil.

3 . In the wake of these allegations the Board of Management met on 17th January 2023 and made a preliminary decision to expel the student from the school. By virtue of s. 24(4) of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”) a period of 20 school days must elapse before the Board can make a final decision to exclude a student. Taking account of the mid-term break the 20-day period was due to expire on 2 ^nd March 2023. By letter dated 26 ^th January 2023 MD's solicitors wrote to the Principal of the school calling upon him to permit the student to remain in the school pending the outcome of a statutory appeal of the expulsion decision to the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills pursuant to s. 29(1) of the 1998 Act.

4 . The letter of 26 ^th January 2023 threatened legal proceedings to compel the school to maintain the enrolment of MD pending the outcome of the s.29 appeal. The Chairman of the Board of Management replied by letter dated 30 ^th January 2023 saying that there was no provision in the Department of Education's procedures “whereby a student could remain in a school pending a final determination of a Board of Management meeting that the student in question should be permanently excluded.”

5 . MD then sought to challenge the “decision” of the school not to allow the student to remain in the school pending the outcome of the s. 29 appeal. On 14 ^th February 2023 Meenan J. granted the student leave to apply for judicial review in respect of these reliefs. He also made an order staying the decision of the Board of Management to exclude the student from the school pending the determination of the s. 29 appeal by the appeal committee. Section 29 does not itself provide for any stay procedure pending the outcome of the appeal against any expulsion decision.

6 . On 3 ^rd March 2023, the school applied to the High Court (Bolger J.) to have the interim injunctive orders which had been granted by Meenan J. set aside. This application was refused by Bolger J. in a judgment delivered on 8 ^th March 2023. The Board of Management met on the day after Bolger J. delivered...