There is no bar on the University of Limerick (UL) launching a new inquiry into its former president who was previously accused of misleading an Oireachtas committee, the college’s lawyers have argued.
They told the High Court that the university is entitled to consider new evidence as it emerges and rejected a suggestion another investigation is a “pretext” for disciplinary action.
Lawyers for Prof Kerstin Mey, now a UL professor of visual culture, contend that an allegation she misled the Dáil‘s Public Accounts Committee (Pac) cannot be revisited because she has been vindicated by an investigation and the parties have reached a settlement agreement.
Mey is seeking a High Court injunction to prevent a new investigation.
READ MORE
She resigned as president in 2024 as part of a settlement after she was threatened with disciplinary action over due diligence and adherence to policies during the 2022 purchase of a 20-house development.
The property was to be rented to 80 postgraduate and research students.
The university paid some €12.5 million for the development, which 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.
Mey told the Pac in May 2023 that an issue arose around why UL’s chief corporate officer (CCO), Andrew Flaherty, was not in attendance before the Pac, even though he stayed the night before in the same hotel as the delegation, had dinner with them paid for by the university and he also allegedly claimed travelling expenses to Dublin.
It later emerged that he was also allegedly texting the delegation during the Pac meeting and two conflicting accounts for his non-attendance were submitted, leading to the launch of a reinvestigation of the matter.
In August 2023, Caroline Jenkinson was appointed to investigate the circumstances surrounding Flaherty’s appointment as CCO and the reply given to the Pac about why he had not been in attendance at the May 2023 meeting.
The investigation found no wrongdoing on behalf of Mey or her representatives regarding Flaherty’s non-attendance.
However, media controversy over the housing deal continued, and in May 2025 the university’s special disclosures group told Mey a reinvestigation was to be carried out over an alleged conflict of information given to the first investigation and to the Pac.
It was alleged that Flaherty was texting the delegation during the Pac meeting and that two conflicting accounts for his non-attendance were submitted.
Barrister Marcus Dowling, for Mey, told Judge Marguerite Bolger the matter could not be reinvestigated as a settlement was already signed and agreed upon between Mey and UL. He said his client has been “vindicated in the strongest terms”.
At the High Court on Thursday, barrister Brian Kennedy, for UL said there was a clause in the settlement to allow UL to investigate any new evidence arising.
Kennedy said there was no risk of UL proceeding to any “immediate” disciplinary meeting without evidence, and no such evidence had been discovered.
He said UL is acting in “good faith” in its reinvestigation of the matter.
The judge reserved her decision on the application.
