“Otter activity at a Co Armagh lake could be harmed by building a new £45 million college campus on its shoreline, the High Court was told. Lawyers for a grandmother who lives close to the parkland site claimed it is currently used by the aquatic mammals with European protected species …” (more)
[Alan Erwin, Belfast Telegraph, 27 January]
“University College Cork’s Students’ Union and Sanctuary Working Group have issued a joint statement in relation to the Khan family’s deportation order. Four brothers Hamza, Zubair, Umair and Mutjuba Khan, along with their sister Shazadi and parents Mubeen and Hina Mubeen, were facing deportation from Ireland after being refused international protection …” (more)
[Áine Kenny, EchoLive, 17 January]
Maynooth University have sued University College Dublin, saying that one of their professors was persuaded by UCD to move to that institution. MU are not trying to prevent the move, but they insist that UCD have acted illegally, and want the High Court to issue a declaration to that effect. Certainly persuading academic staff to change their employer is not as such illegal, but legally speaking there is more to this.
First, MU point to an agreement of 2006, between the chief officers of the seven universities, designed to cool down any developing transfer market. Each undertook to ensure that recruitment would be ‘open and transparent and on the basis of international best practice’, to be mindful of each other’s areas of strategic importance, and to look for possibilities for collaboration.
Second, Irish legislation requires that university appointments procedures be set out ‘in a statute or regulation’ (Universities Act 1997, s 25(1)); and UCD’s statutes and regulations, at least as published online, don’t seem to allow for simply approaching some likely lad/lass and offering a professorship – appointments must usually either be by internal promotion or by open competition (see here, here and here). Having said that, the circumstances aren’t entirely clear – if this case falls into some exception in the current regulations, then no doubt UCD will point this out in short order.
Both arguments are serious, though neither seems absolutely watertight. The 2006 wording is in many respects vague, which makes it hard to demonstrate breach of the agreement, and may even suggest that it doesn’t constitute a legal contract. Its duration is vague too – and it certainly doesn’t say it binds in perpetuity. Non-compliance with the 1997 Act may be easier to demonstrate, though some may wonder about MU’s standing to complain of this – Why should they have a legal interest in UCD’s employment strategy? And if the problem is the lack of a regulation to cover this situation, UCD could resolve that for the future very easily, by writing one. So as a matter of strict law, UCD may have relatively little to worry about.
But winning the legal battle may lose them the war. If UCD are under no legal restraint in poaching staff from other Irish institutions, and can shrug off any obligation to respect ‘international best practice’ as non-binding, then yet another front opens up in the struggles each Irish university must engage in. It is hard to see how the DES will be happy with that. Quite unlike policy in a certain neighbouring jurisdiction, Irish national policy tends to stress the need for third level institutions to complement and support one another; Ireland competes with the world, but not so much with itself.
The DES have already signaled that they do not want this matter before the courts. With the ministers openly calling for ideas to include in revised university legislation, and ostentatiously planning to beef up the powers of the regulator, this is not the time to be trumpeting a current freedom to act in a way that might be considered uncollegial. So universities must settle their quarrels between themselves, or have them settled by others – peace has to break out.
But on what terms?
The Blogmeister
“One of Ireland’s universities is suing another third-level institution over the alleged ‘poaching’ of one of its academic staff. The National University of Ireland Maynooth (NUIM) has brought High Court proceedings against University College Dublin (UCD) …” (more)
[Aodhan O’Faolain and Ray Managh, BreakingNews.ie, 27 August]
“The Burkes’ request for a new judge to hear their religious discrimination case against NUI Galway will be heard by the High Court sitting in Cork on a date in November. The Burkes appealed to the High Court in June this year after Judge Petria McDonnell refused to recuse herself from hearing their case …” (more)
[Isaac Burke, Burke Broadcast, 12 August]
“The religious discrimination case of the four Burke siblings against NUIG is headed to the High Court as individual notices of appeal seeking another judge. They are pursuing their High Court appeal to seek a different judge for their case against NUIG after asking Judge Petria McDonnell to recuse herself at the Circuit Court hearing …” (more)
[Paul Kelly, Galway Daily, 4 July]
“The Burkes lodged an appeal in the High Court yesterday against Judge Petria McDonnell’s refusal to recuse herself from hearing their religious discrimination case against NUI Galway. They are seeking to have another judge take the case …” (more)
[Burke Broadcast, 29 June]
“A High Court judge has overturned the information commissioner’s decision requiring University College Cork to disclose to RTÉ certain information about a €100 million loan agreement between the college and the European Investment Bank (EIB) …” (more)
[Mary Carolan, Irish Times, 3 April]
“A High Court judge has overturned the Information Commissioner’s decision requiring University College Cork to disclose to RTÉ certain information about a €100m loan agreement between the college and the European Investment Bank. The Commissioner must now reconsider RTÉ’s request, made under the Freedom of Information Act, in line with Mr Justice Garrett Simons’ findings …” (more)
[Ann O’Loughlin, Irish Examiner, 3 April]
“A university student has brought a High Court challenge over what she says is the wrongful inclusion of a criminal conviction against her on a disclosure issued by the Garda National Vetting Bureau …” (more)
[Ann O’Loughlin, BreakingNews.ie, 5 March]
“In a recent High Court decision, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys vindicated a citizen’s right to access higher education and vocational training. It is both surprising and disappointing that the Minister for Education and Skills has decided to appeal this decision and is to argue that no individual has a right to access to higher education …” (more)
[Judith Harford and Brian Fleming, Irish Times, 14 February]
“In a prominent September decision, the High Court ruled that Rebecca Carter – whose marks in a leaving certificate paper had been totted up incorrectly – was entitled to a timely recheck from the State Examinations Commission. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys made the ruling by identifying a previously unrecognised right – that of ‘reasonable access to available higher education and vocational training’ …” (more)
[University Times, 10 February]
“Should every individual have a right to access higher or further education after they leave school? It’s a question which lies at the heart of the Minister for Education Joe McHugh’s decision to appeal against key elements of a landmark ruling in favour of Rebecca Carter, whose Leaving Cert points were incorrectly totted up …” (more)
[Carl O’Brien, Irish Times, 6 February]
“Minister for Education Joe McHugh is set to argue that no individual has a right of access to higher education in an upcoming court appeal. The appeal is being made against a ruling carried out last September …” (more)
[Sarah Moran, Trinity News, 6 February]
“A lecturer at Cork Institute of Technology (CIT) has brought a High Court challenge aimed at quashing the college’s decision to dismiss him from his post. Brian McNamara’s proceedings against CIT, the Minister for Education and Skills and the State claims he was not lawfully dismissed from his role as a piano lecturer at the Cork School of Music, which became part of CIT …” (more)
[Aodhan O’Faolain, Irish Times, 4 February]
“JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Allen delivered on the 22nd day of January, 2019. On 14th May, 2001 the plaintiff was appointed as the chief officer of Waterford Institute of Technology for a term of ten years. The plaintiff’s title on his appointment was Director but following the coming into force of the Institutes of Technology Act, 2006 the plaintiff’s title was changed to President …” (more)
[Courts Service, 29 January]
“A former president of Waterford Institute of Technology, Prof Kieran Byrne, has lost his High Court action over the college’s governing body’s decision not to reappoint him to the post. In his judgment on Tuesday, Mr Justice Senan Allen rejected Prof Byrne’s claim he was entitled to be reappointed as WIT president in 2011 …” (more)
[Aodhan O Faolain, Irish Times, 22 January]
“The former president of Waterford Institute of Technology Professor Kieran Byrne has lost his High Court action over a decision by the college governing body not to reappoint him to the post …” (more)
[Ann O’Loughlin, Irish Examiner, 22 January]
“The former president of Waterford Institute of Technology has claimed before the High Court he was humiliated and his reputation damaged after the college’s governing body declined to reappoint him to the post …” (more)
[Aodhan O’Faolain, Irish Times, 14 November]
“The former president of Waterford Institute of Technology, Professor Kieran Byrne, has claimed before the High Court he was humiliated and his reputation damaged after the college governing body declined to reappoint him to the post. The decision not to reappoint Prof Byrne as president was taken after a newspaper published an article concerning the level of expenditure of the president’s office during his tenure …” (more)
[Ann O’Loughlin, Irish Examiner, 13 November]
