An associate professor at Dublin City University has won his High Court challenge to the purported termination of his employment.
The challenge, which raised important issues relating to the employment of academics, was brought by Prof Paul Cahill who joined DCU in October 1999 as senior lecturer in the school of biotechnology in the science and health faculty.
In July 2001 he was appointed associate professor in the school of biotechnology and director of the vascular health research centre.
Prof Cahill, who had previously held positions in a number of American universities, had claimed he had informed DCU in March 2006 of a conditional offer to him of a position at NUI Galway. However, he claimed that in the absence of a final offer from NUI Galway, DCU had on June 14th, 2006, served him with three months' notice of termination of his employment with the university.
He claimed DCU's action breached the conditions of tenure of academics as set out in section 25.6 of the Universities Act 1997 and also breached an agreement between DCU and the Wellcome Trust which required that tenure be granted by DCU to persons awarded "new blood fellowships". Prof Cahill had been awarded one in 1999 by the Wellcome Trust as part of an agreement between the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board to boost capacity into bio-medical research here, it was claimed.
Mr Justice Frank Clarke found the purported termination of Prof Cahill's employment was invalid because DCU had failed to follow the appropriate procedures as set out in the relevant provisions of the Universities Act 1997.
The judge also ruled that the purported termination failed to provide for the "tenure" of Prof Cahill in accordance with the meaning of that term under the 1997 Act. The meaning of "tenure" under the Act involved an obligation to give a greater degree of permanency to officers of a university beyond a provision that contracts could, in the absence of any findings of misconduct or incapacity, be unilaterally terminated after three months' notice.
He said that even if a university could curtail the tenure of office holders in, for example, the context of amalgamation of departments, it was necessary for the statutes of the university to specify the procedures to be followed and those procedures should be arrived at after appropriate consultation. Given the requirement to construe the provisions of the 1997 Act in accordance with the principles of academic freedom, he considered he should make a consequent order which would favour an academic continuing in their duties.
"Much water had passed under the bridge in DCU" since Prof Cahill began his action last year and it was not clear whether he could be restored to his position in DCU, he noted. He adjourned the case to next Friday to allow the parties to consider his judgment. Costs are also expected to be decided on that date.