Lawyers for Prof Kerstin Mey, the former University of Limerick (UL) president, have argued that an allegation she misled the Dáil Public Accounts Committee (PAC) cannot be revisited. They say she has already been vindicated by one investigation and the parties have reached an agreement.
Mey has applied for a High Court injunction to prevent a new investigation relating to a €12.5 million property purchase by the university during her presidency.
Mey, a UL professor of visual culture, resigned as president in 2024 as part of a settlement agreement. She had been threatened with disciplinary action over due diligence and adherence to policies during the 2022 purchase of a 20-house development at Rhebogue, Co Limerick. The properties were to be rented to 80 post-graduate and research students.
The university paid €12.5 million for the development. It was valued for the Comptroller and Auditor General a year later at €6.5 million, with an “in-use” value put at €7.4 million.
READ MORE
Mey, in an affidavit seeking the High Court injunction, said the purchase led to public controversy and a delegation from the university was invited to appear before the PAC on May 18th, 2023.
She told the PAC an issue arose around why UL’s chief corporate officer (CCO), Andrew Flaherty, was not in attendance before the PAC. The night beforehand, he had stayed in the same hotel as the delegation and had dinner with them paid for by the university. It was also alleged he claimed travelling expenses to Dublin.
It was later alleged he had been texting the delegation during the PAC meeting. Two conflicting accounts for his non-attendance were submitted, leading to the launch of a re-investigation of the matter.
In August 2023, Caroline Jenkinson was appointed by a special disclosures group at the university following a protected disclosure to the Minister for Further and Higher Education.
Jenkinson was to investigate the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Flaherty as CCO and the reply given to the PAC about why he had not been in attendance at the meeting on May 18th, 2023.
At the High Court on Wednesday, barrister Marcus Dowling, appearing with Christopher McMahon, for Mey, told Judge Marguerite Bolger the matter could not be re-investigated as a settlement was already signed and agreed upon between Mey and UL.
He said there was no legal obligation to revisit matters after a “warrant” of non-disciplinary action had been agreed between the parties.
Mediation between Mey and the university had resulted in a settlement whereby she would resign from August 31st, 2024, with a particular clause stating no disciplinary action would be brought against her. She was to move to a new €175,000-a-year post as professor of visual culture.
She has taken legal proceedings seeking to prevent the university from bringing new disciplinary proceedings in connection with the allegation that she possibly misled the PAC.
Mey was part of the UL governing body that signed off on the purchase, but it was alleged she approved an additional spend on the homes beyond what the board had approved.
The deal was criticised by the Comptroller and Auditor General as an overspend of more than €5 million.
Dowling submits that UL could not subject his client to a process unless it had an entitlement to do so. He said his client was “effectively demoted and then stepped down”, while suffering a pay-cut as part of a “full and final” 2024 settlement with UL.
He said the settlement agreement was based on UL having “all information to hand” before Mey was “vindicated in the strongest terms” of any wrongdoing by the first investigation.
Dowling said that once an allegation is settled, any investigating party does not have an obligation to run the matter to a conclusion. “You can just settle with someone,” he said.
The whole purpose of the settlement was to warrant no further action and that UL was operating as if it had an “alter ego” to the settlement.
The hearing continues on Thursday before Bolger, when Brian Kennedy, counsel for UL, will address the court.
