About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 126
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Brian Cregan

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Brian Cregan stated that “this court does not intend to take up precious judicial time — let alone impose significant costs on other parties — to hear a case which has now effectively been rendered moot by the resignations of two members and the undertaking by the third member that she will not serve on the new panel”.

The judgment was delivered in February and published yesterday.

Background

On 6 January 2026, the plaintiff issued proceedings seeking inter alia an injunction restraining the defendants from issuing their recommendation in his appeal against his dismissal under appendix 1(A) of the Department of Education’s Circular 49/2018 on the Revised Procedures for Suspension and Dismissal of Teachers and Principals, or from taking further steps to hear his appeal.

The plaintiff also sought an order remitting his appeal back for a fresh hearing by a newly constituted Disciplinary Appeals Panel not including any of the named defendants, and sought a declaration that the second defendant’s acceptance of her nomination to the panel and her subsequent refusal to recuse herself therefrom were in breach of the circular, and were unfair, unreasonable, unlawful, and contrary to natural justice and fair procedures.   

The plaintiff also sought inter alia various declarations concerning alleged unfair procedures in the manner in which the defendants conducted the appeal, and that their refusal to permit him to cross-examine witnesses was unfair, unreasonable, unlawful and contrary to natural justice.

The plaintiff also issued an application for an interlocutory injunction, which was case managed from time to time and which came before the High Court on 4 February 2026. 

The previous day, on 3 February, the first and third defendants had resigned from the Disciplinary Appeals Panel, leading senior counsel for the defendants to indicate to the High Court that the proceedings were now moot.

Both Mr Justice Cregan and the plaintiff expressed concern as to whether the proceedings were in fact moot, in circumstances where the second defendant was still apparently a member of the panel at that time and where the plaintiff’s proceedings sought orders remitting the appeal to a panel not including any of the named defendants and sought a declaration in relation to the second defendant.

The matter was adjourned to allow all parties to consider the position.

The High Court

Mr Justice Cregan explained that it had appeared to the court that two issues remained in the case, “one was that if Ms Geraldine O’Brien remained on the panel, Mr Burke’s case that she was guilty of objective bias, was still alive; and secondly, that he wanted an order remitting the appeal back for a fresh hearing by a new DAP which does not include any of the named defendants”.

The judge noted that by the time the matter came back before the High Court, the defendants’ solicitors had engaged in correspondence with the plaintiff which confirmed that having regard to the provisions of the appendix to the circular, the second defendant was precluded from involvement with his appeal or with any future panel convened to hear his appeal where she had “prior… dealings” with his case.

Mr Justice Cregan, having considered the correspondence, outlined inter alia that it was clear that a new panel excluding the defendants would have to be appointed and:

The judge continued that “secondly he has succeeded in the second most important order he is seeking, which was an order remitting the plaintiff’s appeal back for a fresh hearing by a newly constituted DAP which does not include any of the named defendants. It is clear that a new panel will have to be appointed and it is also clear that none of the existing members will form part of that new panel.”

Finding that the fundamental reliefs sought, not only in the plaintiff’s injunction, but also in his substantive proceedings, had been rendered moot, the court similarly found that all of the declarations sought by the plaintiff fell away because a new panel would be appointed and that the members of the new panel would hear the plaintiff’s appeal.

Conclusion

Being satisfied that the proceedings were now moot, the High Court indicated its intention to strike out the proceedings.

Enoch Burke v Sean O’Longain, Geraldine O’Brien and Jack Cleary [2026] IEHC 126