A Garda civilian driver who was temporarily re-engaged after he was forced to retire at the age of 70 can no longer continue to turn up for work, the High Court has ruled.
Tom Ronan, who won a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) case requiring his re-engagement because of discrimination on grounds of age, had been temporarily allowed to return to work after the High Court made an order on January 30th that he should be re-engaged in accordance with the WRC decision.
The Garda Commissioner and the State, for whom he worked, applied to have that order lifted.
On February 14th, the High Court ruled the re-engagement order should be lifted. The making of the formal order by Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy revoking his re-engagement was adjourned until Friday.
Trump accuses Zelenskiy of ‘gambling with world war three’ in fiery White House meeting
‘A boot right in my face’: Brendan Courtney assaulted in Dublin city
Gerry Thornley: Garry Ringrose’s punishment highlights a problem in the disciplinary process
Kerry businessman jailed for 12 years over largest crystal meth seizure in State’s history
Before making the formal order, however, Mr Justice Mulcahy was told that an application had been made for an appeal of the High Court decision directly to the Supreme Court or alternatively to the Court of Appeal.
In those circumstances, a stay was sought on the revoking of the re-engagement by his counsel, Clíona Kimber. She alternatively sought an order that he continue to be paid until the appeal was finalised.
[ Garda civilian driver to appeal revoked re-engagement order to Supreme CourtOpens in new window ]
This was opposed by Lorna Lynch SC, for the Garda Commissioner and the State.
She said such an order would not be a “stay” on the decision but effectively another injunction (permitting him to be re-engaged), which the court had already found he was not entitled to.
Mr Justice Mulcahy said the order that Mr Ronan be re-engaged had been discharged by the court on the grounds that he had not met the threshold for justifying such an order.
While accepting that the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal may disagree with his decision, he believed it “wholly inconsistent” that an injunction should be granted until that appeal takes place.
Fundamentally, he agreed with the commissioner and the State respondents that there was “nothing to stay”.
He said his order that Mr Ronan not be re-engaged was to start immediately but he hoped the respondents would deal with him “in a respectful manner”.
Ms Lynch told the judge the commissioner had been “well disposed towards Mr Ronan” and in those circumstances had sought that there be no order as to costs, meaning both sides would pay their own costs.
Ms Kimber, for Mr Ronan, asked that there be “costs in the cause”, which would mean that the winning side following the appeal would have to pay the costs.
The judge said he was making no order as to costs.
