- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Teaching Council v Clarke (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
Company A applied under section 44(5) of the Teaching Council Act 2001 for confirmation of a disciplinary decision removing the Respondent from the register of teachers and barring any application for restoration for five years, and also sought permission to communicate the order to teaching bodies in Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland. [Para 17][Para 18]
The matter arose from a May 2019 complaint by a school principal alleging that the Respondent had an affair with a sixth-year pupil, had a sexual encounter with him in August 2018, and had communicated with him on Snapchat. [Para 24][Para 25]
After internal procedures, the Investigating Committee found a prima facie case and referred the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee for alleged professional misconduct and breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct. [Para 26]
The inquiry moved through preliminary hearings in 2021 and 2022, the notice of inquiry issued in January 2022, and judicial review proceedings later delayed matters until October 2024. [Para 28][Para 30]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should confirm the Panel’s decision under section 44(5), or whether there was “good reason” not to do so. [Para 20]
- Whether the Panel’s decision was one no reasonable professional disciplinary body could have made, or was affected by legal, factual, or procedural error. [Para 20][Para 99][Para 102]
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Teaching Council v CD [2026] IEHC 244 | Recent authority on the meaning of “good reason” under section 44(5). [Para 96] | Cited as one of the Court’s recent examples showing how the section 44(5) test is applied in professional disciplinary cases. [Para 96] |
| Teaching Council v MN [2026] IEHC 345 | Recent authority on the same “good reason” standard. [Para 96] | Used alongside CD as part of the Court’s statement of the governing test. [Para 96] |
| Medical Council v M.A.G.A. [2016] IEHC 779 | First case identified as considering the phrase “good reason” in this disciplinary context. [Para 97] | Referred to as the starting point for the line of authority on the statutory test. [Para 97] |
| Medical Council v Lohan-Mannion [2017] IEHC 401 | Further consideration of the “good reason” formula. [Para 98] | Listed as part of the established authority confirming the meaning of the statutory test. [Para 98] |
| Teaching Council v SR [2018] IEHC 582 | Further consideration of the same test in Teaching Council proceedings. [Para 98] | Relied on as another example of the Court’s established approach to section 44(5). [Para 98] |
| Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland v Burke [2025] IEHC 557 | Further disciplinary authority on the meaning of “good reason”. [Para 98] | Cited to reinforce that the statutory phrase has a settled meaning across professional regulatory cases. [Para 98] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court stated that “good reason” under section 44(5) means the Court must be satisfied that the Panel’s decision was one no reasonable professional disciplinary body could have made, or that there was a breach of natural or constitutional justice, or a serious and significant error of law or fact. [Para 99]
The Court accepted Company A’s submission that there had been no breach of natural or constitutional justice and no error of law or fact, leaving only the question whether the decision was irrational in the relevant sense. [Para 100][Para 102]
The Court held that the Panel had correctly applied the governing sanctioning principles, carefully assessed the evidence, and was entitled to treat the Respondent’s dishonesty and misleading conduct as aggravating factors. [Para 104]
On that basis, the Court concluded that the Panel’s sanction was appropriate and proportionate, and that there was no basis for treating it as a decision no reasonable body could have made. [Para 106]
Holding and Implications
CONFIRMED. The Court confirmed the Panel’s decision and made the orders sought by Company A. [Para 107]
The direct effect is that the Respondent remains removed from the register and cannot apply for restoration for five years; the judgment applies the existing statutory test and does not set out any new precedent. [Para 17][Para 79][Para 107][Para 99]
Alert