Yeates v Minister for Posts and Telegraphs

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: KENNYJ.:
• Judgment Date: 21 February 1978
• Neutral Citation: 1981 WJSC-HC 1406
• Date: 21 February 1978
• Docket Number: No. 1064P/1978
• Court: High Court

1981 WJSC-HC 1406

THE HIGH COURT

No. 1064P/1978

YEATES v. MINISTER FOR POSTS & TELEGRAPHS.

BETWEEN:

EDWARD JAMES YEATES AND OTHERS

Plaintiffs

and

THE MINISTER FOR POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS AND IRELAND AND THEATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICES

Defendants

1 Judgment delivered 21st of February 1978 KENNYJ.:

2 The plaintiffs who are civil servants holding office in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs issued a plenary summons on the 17th of February 1978 in which they claimed (a) an injunction restraining the defendants (the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Ireland, the Attorney General and the Minister for the Public Services from continuing the purported suspension of their employment by the defendant Ireland (b) a mandatory injunction ordering the defendants to pay the salary and emoluments to which the plaintiffs are entitled (c) an injunction directing the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to terminate the suspension of each plaintiff and to restore each of themto the position ho held before the 15th of February 1978, the date when they were suspended and (d) an order declaring that the purported suspension of each plaintiff was in breach of contract, contrary to natural Justice and Constitutional justice.

3 The majority of the plaintiffs are established civil servants and so hold office at the will and pleasure of the Government so that most of them are entitled to remain in the State service until the Government decides to dismiss them or they reach the retiring age (s. 5 of the Civil Service Regulation Act 1956). Each of the plaintiffs is however liable to be suspended from duty if it appears to the suspending authority that the civil servant has been guilty of grave misconduct or of grave irregularity warranting disciplinary action (s. 13 of the Act of 1956).

4 The plaintiffs then issued a notice of motion for hearing on Monday the 20th of February claiming interlocutory injunctions in the terms of the plenary summons. Thus, this is not the trial of the action but an application for injunctions before the hearing of the action, the effect of which (if granted) would be to restore the plaintiffs to their positions in the Civil Service and to give them the right of their remuneration pending the trial of the action. To get such relief at this stage the plaintiffs must show that they havea reasonable prospect of success in the action and that damages, if awarded to them ultimately, will not be an adequate remedy for the wrong which they allege has been done to them.

5 This most unfortunate controversy arises out of the dispute between the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and those working in his Department, I wish to say as little as possible about that dispute because 1 have not heard the Minister's version of its causes. On this notion the Minister decided that he would not give his reasons for the action be has taken because he maintained through...