Mary Carolan
The High Court has lifted an interim injunction which had restrained Bord na gCon, the Irish Greyhound Board, since last March from appointing a new chief executive.
The injunction was originally granted following a dispute within the board about how the new CEO should be appointed.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly refused to grant to Mr Daniel Reilly, a director of the board, an interlocutory order - one continuing pending the determination of the full legal action - restraining the appointment of a new CEO. This is pending the determination of the status of a decision of a board sub-committee last January which had recommended by a two-one majority the appointment of a particular candidate.
The judge refused the application on grounds that the balance of convenience lay in allowing the board to proceed with appointing a CEO. If he granted an order, it could mean the board would be unable to appoint its most senior officer until 2004.
The judge said he also took into account that Mr Reilly had incorrectly sworn in an affidavit last March that he believed the Bord na gCon chairman, Mr Paschal Taggart, was to be a member of a new sub-committee to select a CEO. That "wholly wrong" assertion had not been corrected in subsequent affidavits.
The judge said he believed the assertion suggested that Mr Taggart intended to "ride roughshod" over a December decision of the board in relation to the appointment of the sub-committee and would have had a material effect on the High Court's decision last March to grant an interim order restraining the appointment of a new CEO.
He was also taking into account Mr Reilly's delay in advancing the legal proceedings since obtaining the interim injunction last March. The board had been without a CEO for 4½ months and a statement of claim had yet to be advanced, he noted. There had also been criticism of Mr Reilly going to court in the first place without informing the board and Mr Taggart.
The judge said it also appeared to him that Mr Reilly had a "thin" case but he would not go so far at this stage to find he had no statable case.
He said the appointment of a CEO was arguably the most important appointment a board of a State body would have to perform and it would be surprising and unusual if it left that appointment to a sub-committee.
The judge noted that only one member of the board of Bord na gCon shared Mr Reilly's view of what had happened at a board meeting last March on the appointment of a CEO, while a majority agreed with Mr Taggart's views. The documents also did not appear to support Mr Reilly's view.
The legal action arose from a dispute about how a new CEO to replace Mr Michael Field, who was due to retire last March, was to have been selected. In an affidavit, Mr Reilly had said he was a member of a sub-committee appointed by the board to select and, he claimed, appoint that person. He and another member, Ms Susan McGrath, a nominee of the Department of Sports, Art and Culture, had opted in favour of one candidate after an interview process on January 6th, 2003. Mr Taggart, the third member of the committee, had dissented.
Mr Reilly claimed Mr Taggart had then sought to alter the manner of selection by bringing the matter before the board.
Mr Taggart said it was always intended that the person chosen by the selection committee should go before the board for approval. He claimed a majority of the board's members agreed with this view. In an affidavit, Mr Taggart rejected claims he had bullied Mr Reilly.