Burke v O'Longain and Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

These proceedings were issued by the Plaintiff on 6 January 2026 by plenary summons against three Defendants. The plenary summons sought multiple reliefs (approximately 11), including an injunction restraining each of the Defendants from issuing a recommendation in the Plaintiff's appeal under Appendix 1(A) of Circular 49/2018 and an order remitting the Plaintiff's appeal for a fresh hearing by a newly constituted Disciplinary Appeal Panel (DAP) that did not include any of the named Defendants. The Plaintiff also sought declarations alleging unfair procedures and breaches of natural justice, including that the Defendants had refused to permit cross-examination and to accept affidavits.

An interlocutory injunction application was made returnable on 14 January 2026 and the matter was case-managed. Affidavits were exchanged from the Plaintiff and from some Defendants. On 3 February 2026 two members of the DAP (the first and third Defendants) resigned. On 4 February 2026 counsel for the Defendants submitted that the proceedings were moot; the Plaintiff disagreed and the matter was adjourned to allow consideration. During the adjournment the Defendants' solicitors (Company A) wrote (exhibited in an affidavit of Attorney Mac Róibín dated 18 February 2026) stating that the two resignations meant the original panel could no longer sit and stating that the second Defendant was precluded by Appendix 1(A) to Circular 49/2018 from any further involvement in the Plaintiff's appeal and would have no further involvement. The Court concluded that, in consequence, the principal reliefs sought had been achieved by the facts on the ground and the proceedings were moot.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the second Defendant's continued involvement in the DAP gave rise to objective bias and related breaches of Appendix 1(A) of Circular 49/2018 and natural justice.
2. Whether the Plaintiff's appeal should be remitted for a fresh hearing before a newly constituted Disciplinary Appeal Panel that excludes the named Defendants.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff maintained that the proceedings were not moot and sought time to consider and press his claims, including alleged objective bias by the second Defendant and a remit to a new DAP.
• The Plaintiff relied on affidavits alleging unfair procedures (refusal to permit cross-examination, refusal to accept affidavits, etc.).

Defendants' Arguments

• Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the proceedings had become moot following the resignations of two panel members.
• The Defendants' solicitors (Company A) communicated that the original panel could no longer hear the appeal and that the second Defendant was precluded from further involvement under Appendix 1(A) to Circular 49/2018 and would have no further involvement.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court identified two live issues prior to the correspondence: (1) the allegation of objective bias against the second Defendant if she remained on the panel; and (2) the Plaintiff's request to remit the appeal to a newly constituted DAP excluding the named Defendants. The Court adjourned to permit further consideration. The Court then considered the defendants' solicitors' letter exhibited in Attorney Mac Róibín's affidavit of 18 February 2026, which stated that the first and third Defendants had resigned and that the second Defendant was precluded from further involvement under Appendix 1(A) to Circular 49/2018.

The Court examined Appendix 1(A) to Circular 49/2018 as set out in the correspondence, noting (i) the required composition of a DAP (an independent chairperson from a panel nominated by the Minister for Education and Skills, a representative of the recognised management body, and a nominee of the relevant teacher union) and (ii) the rule that "No member shall be appointed to the Panel to consider a case referred to the Panel who has had any prior interest in or dealings with that particular case." From these provisions and the defendants' undertaking, the Court concluded that a new panel necessarily must be appointed and that none of the existing named Defendants would form part of that new panel.

Because the primary injunctive and remit remedies sought by the Plaintiff had been effectively achieved by the resignations and the undertaking (i.e., none of the named Defendants could issue recommendations or take further steps in the Plaintiff's appeal and the appeal would be heard by a newly constituted panel not including them), the Court found the principal reliefs moot. The Court further observed that the declaratory claims regarding the conduct of the original panel (refusals to allow cross-examination, to accept affidavits, etc.) fell away in practical terms because a new panel would hear the appeal afresh and decide procedure for itself.

Holding and Implications

STRUCK OUT

Holding: The Court struck out the proceedings on the basis that the principal reliefs were rendered moot by the resignations of two members of the original DAP and the undertaking that the second Defendant would have no further involvement.

Implications: As a direct effect, the Plaintiff's injunctive and remit remedies were rendered unnecessary because a new DAP must be appointed and none of the named Defendants will participate in that new panel. The declaratory claims about the original panel's conduct were left without practical effect because the new panel will hear the appeal afresh. The opinion does not identify any broader precedent being established; its effect is confined to the disposition of these proceedings.

Judge: Judge Cregan