O'Neill v Beaumont Hospital Board

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeFINLAY C.J.
Judgment Date01 January 1990
Neutral Citation1990 WJSC-SC 1090
CourtSupreme Court
Date01 January 1990
O'NEILL v. BEAUMONT HOSPITAL
O'NEILL
v.
BEAUMONT HOSPITAL

1990 WJSC-SC 1090

Finlay C.J.

Walsh J.

Griffin J.

218/89

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis:

EMPLOYMENT

Commencement

Probation - Termination - Permanent appointment - Absence - Hospital board's temporary appointment of paediatric neurosurgeon - Duty of respondents to certify their satisfaction or dissatisfaction at end of probationary period - Certificate of dissatisfaction issued by respondents" executive officer - Propriety of respondents" delegation of duty - Time limit for issue of certificate - Reasonable period to be allowed after expiration of probationary period - (218/89 - Supreme Court - 26/7/89) - [1990] ILRM 419

|O'Neill v. Beaumont Hospital Board|

TRIBUNAL

Enquiry

Prevention - Bias - Issue - Predetermination - Hospital - Board of management - Dissatisfaction with services of neurosurgeon during probationary period - Services investigated by board's executive officer - Certificate of dissatisfaction issued by executive officer - Certificate a nullity - Hospital board compelled to investigate ~de novo~ such services - Whether such investigation to be restrained - (218/89 - Supreme Court - 26/7/89 - [1990] ILRM 419

|O'Neill v. Beaumont Hospital Board|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"At the end of the probationary period"

Hospital - Neurosurgeon - Appointment - Probation - Appointment for initial period of 12 months - Obligation of hospital to certify satisfaction or dissatisfaction at the end of the probationary period - Obligation arising after expiration of period - Reasonable period allowed to hospital after such expiration - (218/89 - Supreme Court - 26/7/89)

|O'Neill v. Beaumont Hospital Board|

1

Ex Tempore Judgment delivered on the 26th day of July1989by FINLAY C.J.

2

These are two appeals against two separate decisions reached by Mr. Justice Murphy in the High Court, and they have been heard here together since both affect the question of the rights on the one part of Mr. O'Neill, a consultant neurosurgeon, and on the other part of the Respondents the Hospital Board, concerning the question of the continuation of the appointment of Mr. O'Neill the probationary period of which expired in the month of March this year, and since the matter has been brought before this Court as a matter of great urgency and was specially provided for in this Court, having reached a conclusion with regard to each of the appeals I do not consider itwould be fair to the parties, having regard to what is at stake, that I should delay giving judgment.

3

I will deal firstly with the appeal with regard to the construction of the Contract. The Contract is a contract entered into between the Board of the Hospital and the consultant. It is described in some of the documents as the "Common Consultant's Contract", in other words, it was a contract devised and adopted by more than one hospital in relation to the appointment of consultants. As far as the legal status of it is, it is an individual contractual document reached as an agreement between the consultant Mr. O'Neill and the Board of this Hospital, and the clause in it which falls to be interpreted and against which an appeal of the interpretation put on it by Mr. Justice Murphy is before us is Clause 11(2). Clause 11 provides for a probationary period. Clause 11(1) provides certain circumstances under which a probationary period does not arise at all, and none of those circumstances are relevant to the facts of thiscase. Clause 11(2) provides as follows, and I quote:

"Your appointment shall be subject to the condition that you shall hold your appointment for a probationary period of twelve months which the Beaumont Hospital Board may at its discretion extend, in which case the reason for the extension shall be made known in writing to you. At the end of the probationary period the Beaumont Hospital Board shall either certify with stated reasons that your service has not been satisfactory, in which case you shall cease to hold the appointment, or (b) certify that your service has been satisfactory and confirm your appointment on a permanent basis. If the Beaumont Hospital Board shall fail to certify in accordance with (a) or (b) above the appointment shall be deemed to take effect on a permanent basis."

4

The issue with regard to the interpretation of this particular sub-clause of the agreement which fell to be decided in the High Court and in this Court was the question as to what meaning should be attached to the words "at the end of the probationary period" in so far as they related to the obligation imposed on the Hospital Board to certify in either of the two forms (a) or (b). I have come to the conclusion that theinterpretation put upon this sub-clause by the learned High Court Judge is the correct one. The terms of this sub-clause must be construed in the light of the terms of the entire Contract in which it is contained and in the light of the purpose for which that Contract was entered into between the parties concerned. The Contract provides for an extension where the Board shall so decide of this probationary period, subject to the obligation, having reached that decision, to state the reasons for it in writing to the consultant concerned. It deals with an obligation imposed on the Board of a Hospital and one must, in my view, in interpreting the Contract, have regard to the fact that it would have been within the knowledge...

To continue reading

Request your trial
86 cases
  • Hand v Ludlow
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 18 December 2009
    ...COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF IRELAND 1994 1 IR 384 MURTAGH v BOARD OF GOVNORS OF ST EMERS SCHOOL 1991 1 IR 482 O'NEILL v BEAUMONT HOSPITAL 1990 ILRM 419 EDUCATION ACT 1998 S7 EDUCATION ACT 1998 PART II EDUCATION ACT 1998 PART III EDUCATION ACT 1998 PART IV EDUCATION ACT 1998 PART V EDUCATION A......
  • O'Neill v Irish Hereford Breed Society Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1992
    ...J. in Corrigan v. Irish Land CommissionIR [1977] I.R. 317 at 322 and 333 and dicta of Finlay C.J. in O'Neill v. Beaumont HospitalDLRM [1990] ILRM 419 at 438 and 439 followed. 2. That, whilst not every prior involvement by a member of a board exercising a quasi judicial function with a perso......
  • HUME and Others v Judge O'Donnell
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 8 September 2006
    ...DEFENDANT -and- PALMECE LIMITED NOTICE PARTY INTOXICATING LIQUOR ACT 1960 S32 COURTS ACT (NO 2) 1986 S9 O'NEILL v BEAUMONT HOSPITAL 1990 ILRM 419 O'REILLY v CASSIDY (NO 2) 19995 1 ILRM 311 FGC LTD v LANNON 1968 3 AER 304 DUBLIN CO BROADCASTING v INDEPENDENT RADIO & TELEVISION COMMISSION UNR......
  • Traynor v Ryan
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 17 July 2002
    ...AND JOHN RYAN DEFENDANT Citations: HEALTH ACT 1970 S22 HEALTH ACT 1970 S23 HEALTH ACT 1970 S24 O'NEILL V BEAUMONT HOSPITAL BOARD 1990 ILRM 419 O'CEALLAIGH V BORD ALTRANAIS 2000 4 IR 54 REES V CRANE 1994 2 AC 173 Synopsis: EMPLOYMENT LAW Disciplinary procedures Declaration - Whether defen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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