This is a Court of Appeal case regarding the legality of the disciplinary process conducted by the respondent. As a result of the disciplinary process by the respondent Board of Management it was found that the applicant had engaged in "inappropriate behaviour" towards a student. Following on from the finding of the disciplinary meeting, a disciplinary procedure was conducted. A meeting was held between the principal of the school, a nominee of the Board of Management and the applicant (who was accompanied by a trade union representative). A final written warning was imposed on the appellant for "inappropriate behaviour" namely calling a student an unpleasant and offensive name.

The appellant seeks to quash the original  Board of Management decision and the decision to impose a final warning. The applicant had sought to appeal the decision but was informed that the decision of the Board of Management was final. The trial judge rejected the applicant's application for judicial review stating that it was not a matter requiring judicial review, effectively finding the proceedings moot and that the Court should not interfere. The trial judge had reached this decision on the basis that the final warning had expired by the time of the hearing and that it was de minimis in nature on the grounds that it was simply a warning and not an imposition of liability.

The Court held that the trial judge was wrong in finding that the issues raised were minimal in nature as there was potentially reputational damage of a sufficient degree of seriousness which took the case outside the ambit of de minimis. The Court indicated that the final written warning could seriously impact the applicant’s employment prospects and his future opportunities to earn a livelihood. The Court stated that the final warning had potentially grave reputational implications for the applicant's good name and employment prospects as it could not be said that the final written warning no longer had meaning, implications or effects for the applicant. Therefore, they concluded that the proceedings are not moot or de minimis and remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh determination on the merits of the arguments.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/e00cac31fbeb9682802582f7002fe0e8?OpenDocument