The applicant, “C.D.” was employed as a Primary school teacher in a small rural school from 1996 to 2018. In 1998 she became Principal of the school. Whilst on administrative leave in March 2018, she was informed by the Board of Management that she was dismissed. The Applicant then applied to the High Court for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the Board of Management to dismiss her from her position.

The Applicant was dismissed as a result of a number of serious allegations made against her by a Special Needs Assistant in the school. The Applicant disputed all of the allegations and gave alternative explanations which she maintained at some points “should have given the Board pause for thought when considering the accuracy and validity of the other allegations made by the SNA”. The Applicant further submitted that the Board should have considered the fact that she had an unblemished teaching record and there had never been any parental complaint lodged against her. She submitted that the Board’s decision was irrational, unreasonable and unlawful.

After the Applicant was dismissed, she appealed to the Disciplinary Appeals Panel (DAP), which found in her favour and recommended that she should be immediately reinstated as Principal. However, the Board rejected this recommendation and confirmed its decision to dismiss. The Applicant argued that the investigation process was fundamentally flawed, and the decision arrived at was irrational, unreasonable and unlawful. The Board of Management failed to give any adequate reasons why they had reached their decision.

In relation to the Principal's suspension pending a hearing, the Court took the view that it cannot be said that the respondent’s decision to place the applicant on administrative leave was unreasonable, notwithstanding the fact that that by so doing, the applicant was caused to suffer considerable stress and upset.

In reaching a conclusion, Mr. Justice Barr was satisfied that the decision to dismiss should be set aside. Mr Justice Barr also stated that the outright rejection of the DAP recommendation, with which “there was no logical or constructive engagement”, was another ground on which the decision should be set aside.

Importantly, other employers might also wish to take note of the following paragraph from the judgement:

"Having considered the submissions of counsel, the Court is satisfied that there is an obligation under Irish law for decision makers to set out adequately the reasons for reaching a decision, when such decision will have a far reaching and profound effect on the life and earning capacity of the person concerned... Indeed, short of a conviction for an indictable offence, being dismissed from one’s job is probably the most serious consequence that a person may have to face in their life."
https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2019/2019IEHC819.html