The Supreme Court has ruled that a professor of economics at University College Cork may not be a defendant in proceedings being taken against UCC by two members and one former member of staff of the economics department.
Mr Anthony Barlow, Mr Martin Kenneally and Mr Michael Ó Suilleabháin began proceedings in 1998 in which they sought damages for negligence and breach of contract against Prof Connell Fanning and UCC.
In their statement of claim, they contended Prof Fanning refused to involve them in the administration and development of the department; isolated and marginalised them within the department; frustrated their chances of promotion and refused to consider them for any administrative post within the department.
They claimed the UCC authorities were vicariously responsible for the alleged acts or omissions on the part of Prof Fanning and also alleged the authorities failed to supervise the administration by Prof Fanning of the department.
It was agreed between UCC and Prof Fanning that the defence to the proceedings would be conducted on behalf of both of them by the university's solicitors. On June 8th, 1999, the plaintiffs' solicitors filed a notice that they were discontinuing their claim against Prof Fanning. This was followed by the institution of a mediation process in which the plaintiffs, Prof Fanning and UCC were involved.
Prof Fanning became dissatisfied with the conduct by UCC of the mediation procedure, believing it was in breach of the agreement about the joint defence of the proceedings. This led to the institution of a new set of proceedings by Prof Fanning against UCC.
Also in June 1999, solicitors for the plaintiffs had written to solicitors for the defendants saying they wanted the mediation process to continue but their clients believed the inclusion of Prof Fanning as a joint defendant was, in part at least, inhibiting the process from continuing to a successful conclusion. Accordingly, their clients had instructed them to serve a notice of discontinuance of the proceedings against Prof Fanning.
Prof Fanning believed the plaintiffs had adopted this procedure to prevent him defending his reputation and that it was designed to facilitate a settlement between the plaintiffs and the university in which he would not be consulted. He applied to be rejoined.
The High Court ordered that he be rejoined but UCC appealed that decision to the Supreme Court which, in a reserved judgment yesterday, allowed the appeal.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said Prof Fanning's presence was not necessary to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the cause or matter.