Professor’s dismissal from DCU did not observe fair procedures

Cahill -v- DCU, Supreme Court. Judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan on December 9th, 2009, with Mrs Justice Susan Denham and Ms Justice Fidelma Macken concurring …” (more)

[Irish Times, 18 January]

Tags: ,

One Response to “Professor’s dismissal from DCU did not observe fair procedures”

  1. DCU Academic Says:

    In relation to the article that inspired this post, I think the Irish Times article was very misleading. As far as I am aware, the Professor remains in Office since 2006 when an interlocutory injunction was secured that duly prevented the purported ‘dismissal’. This was upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court. Thus, there is no question of re-instatement as to the form of the final order as Prof Cahill remained in office throughout the litigation. The claim by the IT that he ‘was’ an officer of the university is at best damaging to his reputation.

    Any claim for damages will no doubt cover the damage to his academic credentials and reputation following over three years of litigation rather than any compensation for loss of his position. If this is not the outcome, I would not be surprised if the failure of the Supreme Court to adjudicate either way on tenure and the DCU statute will require further judicial review up to and including the Eurpopean Courts if the Clarke J judgement on these grounds is not upheld.

    The further claim by the IT that a ‘year’ had transpired from the date of the purported dismissal to the High Court hearing is also misleading at best as is self evident from the procedural background enshrined within the High Court judgement or further from a quick perusal of the Supreme Court decision.

Leave a Reply