Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Higgins v Coleman and Anor (Approved)
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff is a fifth-year medical student on a six-year degree programme at The University. The disciplinary procedure arose from an incident on 13 May 2025 involving the Plaintiff, Person A (a module coordinator), Person B (Head of Subject), and Person F (the Plaintiff's relative). On 14 May 2025 Person B emailed the Plaintiff expressing concern and advising referral to the disciplinary procedure. Person C (a senior academic) prepared a Student Misconduct Incident Report on 19 May 2025 referring the matter to SECCA. The Plaintiff applied ex parte on 9 September 2025 for injunctive relief to restrain and withdraw the Student Discipline Procedure; a temporary restraint was granted pending an interlocutory hearing conducted over two days in December 2025. Judge Bolger delivered judgment on 28 January 2026 refusing the application.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether there is a fair issue or strong case that the disciplinary procedure is tainted by bias (reasonable apprehension of bias) such that it should be restrained or set aside.
- Whether the disciplinary procedure was invoked in retaliation for the Plaintiff indicating an intention to complain about Person A.
- Whether the Plaintiff's complaints under The University's bullying and harassment procedure should have taken precedence over the disciplinary procedure.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The disciplinary procedure should be set aside in its entirety on grounds of bias because the nominated decision-maker (Person D) has collegial and reporting connections with the academic staff involved.
- The procedure was invoked in retaliation after the Plaintiff indicated an intention to complain about Person A.
- The bullying and harassment complaints against Person A and Person B ought to have been screened and proceeded before the student disciplinary process.
The University's Arguments
- The Plaintiff has not shown a fair issue or strong case on bias; Person D's collegial relationship does not establish the cogent link required for reasonable apprehension of bias.
- Documentary evidence (including an incident log and incident report) predates the Plaintiff's critical email and supports the legitimacy of referring the matter to SECCA; the evidence does not support a retaliation claim.
- The bullying and harassment and student disciplinary procedures are distinct; The University retains discretion to determine which procedure proceeds first and the Plaintiff failed to provide consent/disclosure needed for screening.
- The University's replying affidavit provided sufficient factual basis (including hearsay admissible under Order 40 rules) to defend against the interlocutory relief.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Bhblasted S.R.L Societa Benefit and Ors v Meta Platforms Ireland Limited [2025] IEHC 699 |
Courts should focus on the remedy sought by the plaintiff and the evidence on which it is based when crafting remedies. |
Cited to support the proposition that the court should concentrate on the specific remedy sought by the Plaintiff rather than devising alternative remedies. |
| Rowland v An Post [2017] IR 355 |
Court should not interfere prematurely in ongoing disciplinary processes unless defects are irremediable. |
Applied as the standard: Plaintiff did not show the process had gone so irremediably wrong as to justify restraint. |
| Burke v O'Longáin & Ors [2025] IECA 148 |
Test for reasonable apprehension of bias as applied by an objective informed observer; contextual examples where bias was found. |
Considered closely; court distinguished the present facts from Burke and found no cogent link establishing bias here. |
| RAS Medical Limited v The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland [2019] IESC 4 |
Relevant to restraint of internal procedures (cited by Plaintiff). |
Distinguished: court held the present case materially different from RAS Medical. |
| Fennell v Slevin & Ors [2020] IEHC 677 |
Admissibility and sufficiency of affidavit evidence in interlocutory proceedings (Order 40, rule 4). |
Relied on to conclude The University's affidavit provided a sufficient basis for its defence and that hearsay was admissible in context. |
| [2023] IECA 177 |
Upholding principles from Fennell in the Court of Appeal (as cited). |
Noted as supporting the admissibility/sufficiency of The University's affidavit materials. |
| A.B. v The Health Service Executive [2025] IECA 48 |
Court commentary on disclosure and pulling information from parties in procedural contexts. |
Referenced when assessing the Plaintiff's failure to disclose key documents and the court's observations about such conduct. |
| Dunne v Board of Management of Little Angels [2023] IEHC 312 |
Application of Merck Sharp and Dohme principles to disciplinary proceedings. |
Used to frame the interlocutory injunction test and the specific considerations for disciplinary contexts. |
| Merck Sharp and Dohme |
General principles for interlocutory injunctions (established test). |
Applied as the governing test for whether interlocutory relief should be granted. |
| Carroll v Bus Átha Cliath [2005] 4 IR 184 |
Reluctance to intervene prematurely in incomplete disciplinary processes. |
Cited as part of the authority for deferring to internal procedures unless defects are irremediable. |
| Minnock v Irish Casing Company Ltd and Stewart [2007] 18 ELR 229 |
Authority on intervention in disciplinary processes. |
Referenced in support of the court's approach to interlocutory restraint of internal procedures. |
| Barrett v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2023] IECA 112 |
Guidance on examining whether alleged procedural errors can be remedied within the process. |
Applied to assess whether the Plaintiff's complaints were capable of being corrected within internal procedures. |
| Lally v Board of Management of Rosmini Community School [2021] IEHC 633 |
Summary of position on restraint of ongoing disciplinary procedures. |
Quoted to support the view that ongoing processes should proceed unless irremediably flawed. |
| O'Neill v The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2020] IEHC 448 |
Reluctance to intervene at interlocutory stage absent clear, incurable defects. |
Quoted for the proposition that courts will intervene only where continuation would cause irreparable harm and the process is incurably flawed. |
| Bula Ltd v Tara Mines Ltd (No. 6) [2000] 4 I.R. 412 |
Test for reasonable apprehension of bias (objective reasonable person). |
Applied as the legal test for bias; court concluded the facts did not satisfy that test. |
| Student A.B. (a minor) v The Board of Management of a Secondary School [2019] IEHC 255 |
Practical recognition that disciplinary processes in educational settings must remain workable. |
Referred to when assessing the realism of expecting decision-makers to be entirely detached from academic colleagues. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Bolger applied the established interlocutory injunction test (Merck Sharp and Dohme) as articulated in Dunne and related authorities, focusing on whether a fair issue or strong case was established and, if so, where the least risk of injustice lies. The court considered documentary chronology (incident log, emails, incident report) and found these supported The University's decision to invoke the disciplinary procedure and undermined the Plaintiff's claim of retaliation.
On bias, the court applied the Bula test as explained in Burke: an objective informed observer must perceive a reasonable apprehension of bias. The court found that collegial research relationships between Person D and the complainants, without evidence of involvement in the incident or recent supervisory links, did not establish the cogent connection required for reasonable apprehension of bias.
On retaliation, the court concluded that contemporaneous reporting (security incident log) and prior disclosure of the Plaintiff's mental health concerns made it implausible that the procedure was invoked solely in retaliation for the Plaintiff's later critical email.
On the priority of procedures, the court reasoned the bullying and harassment process and the student disciplinary process are distinct with The University entitled to determine the order of procedures; the Plaintiff's refusal to consent to disclosure hampered screening of his complaints. The court further held that the Plaintiff had failed to prove the disciplinary process had gone so irremediably wrong that interference was required (Rowland standard).
Finally, on evidentiary objections, the court found The University's affidavits provided sufficient basis for resisting interlocutory relief and that hearsay was admissible in the interlocutory context under Order 40.
Holding and Implications
RELIEF REFUSED
Holding: The court refused the Plaintiff's application for injunctive relief to restrain or withdraw the Student Discipline Procedure.
Implications: The disciplinary procedure may proceed at The University. The decision means the Plaintiff may seek remedies within the internal process and, if necessary, challenge procedural fairness or outcomes thereafter in court. The court did not identify any new legal precedent; it applied existing authorities and found the Plaintiff had not met the Rowland/Bula thresholds required to restrain the process at this interlocutory stage.
The judgment was delivered by Judge Bolger. Counsel of record were Attorney Rogers and Attorney Devitt for the Plaintiff and Attorney McDonagh and Attorney Curran for The University.
Click here to read the full judgment