A HIGH Court judge hopes to give judgment later this month on proceedings by a teacher against his being resuspended over an inquiry into sex abuse allegations.
Last July, the High Court ruled Patrick McGlinchey was entitled to have determined as a matter of contract law his employment status with the special needs school from which he was suspended for some 13 years.
Mr McGlinchey (57) last year succeeded in having that suspension quashed as part of a High Court settlement under which the school was also to hold a new independent inquiry into the suspension. Issues then arose with that inquiry.
Mr McGlinchey, who is married with children and lives in Newport, Co Tipperary, was suspended on full pay in 1997 following allegations he abused a number of pupils in the school.
In 2002, he was acquitted of sex abuse charges against two male pupils following a 19-day trial at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.
In a settlement of his civil action over his continued suspension last year, the suspension was lifted on terms including that the school would set up its own private inquiry into the allegations, including those made by other pupils.
When that inquiry took place last December, Mr McGlinchey and his lawyers walked out on the second day after the Bar Council-appointed adjudicator ruled he would allow into evidence video recordings of children who had made abuse complaints.
Mr McGlinchey claimed this was hearsay evidence and he would not have an opportunity to question his accusers. He also claimed one of the first witnesses to be called by the inquiry was a boy whose allegations had been thrown out by a criminal court.
As a result of the walkout, the school resuspended Mr McGlinchey saying he had attempted to frustrate the inquiry.
He then brought High Court proceedings claiming the school failed to comply with last year’s settlement, that the adjudicator’s ruling in relation to the video evidence was unlawful and there was a breach of his contract in failing to let him go back to work. The school denied his claims and argued he failed to co-operate with the inquiry as required under the settlement.
Last July, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy ruled the consequences of Mr McGlinchey’s withdrawal from the inquiry must be determined under the law of contract of employment. She said she would hear submissions from the parties on the contract law issue and adjourned the case to yesterday when she reserved judgment after hearing those submissions.
Peter Finlay for Mr McGlinchey asked the judge to first rule on the damages his client was entitled to over the school’s breach of last year’s settlement agreement.
James Connolly for the school argued Mr McGlinchey should not have walked out of the inquiry.