A nurse, who claims she was appointed child health development officer with the Northern Area Health Board five months ago, is to ask the High Court for leave to challenge the board's refusal to let her take up the job.
Ms Majella Loftus, Raglan Lane, Ballsbridge, Dublin, told High Court President, Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan, yesterday she had been offered the post after interview on January 15th last and accepted by letter two days later.
Mr Mark Harty, counsel for Ms Loftus, said the board in a letter of January 20th confirmed receipt of her acceptance but since that date had taken no steps to allow her to take up the post.
He said Ms Loftus had since made numerous inquiries with the board but had received no adequate explanation.
Mr Harty said that on May 27th last her solicitor Martin Moran had written seeking clarification but had received no response.
Ms Loftus said that since accepting the post she had not been in a position to seek alternative work. In the belief her new job was due to start, she had turned down offers of alternative employment and as a result had suffered loss and damage.
She said the board had acted unfairly and had caused her to hold a legitimate expectation which had not been fulfilled. It had failed to provide any explanation for its actions and she felt it would continue not to do so unless compelled to do otherwise.
Mr Harty said Ms Loftus was seeking leave to judicially review the board's decisions and seek a declaratory order from the court that she has been employed as the board's child health development officer since January 20th.
She would also be seeking an order directing the board to take such steps as was necessary to allow her to take up the post.
Ms Loftus told the court she was a fully trained registered general nurse, a registered paediatric nurse and paediatric intensive care trained specialist nurse.
Mr Justice Finnegan said it seemed the problem had arisen due to a lack of communication and could readily be resolved. He felt the application to legally challenge the board's decision was one which should be heard in the presence of the board's own legal representatives and adjourned the matter until the beginning of the new law term.