The singer Chris de Burgh was one of a number of people who acted "with impropriety" in regard to a decision of the board of his old school, Aravon, Co Wicklow, to sack its principal, the High Court was told yesterday. Mr Frank Callanan, counsel for Mrs Patricia O'Malley, a 53-year-old mother of four, claimed the board and Mr de Burgh, who attended meetings although he was not a school governor, had attempted to apply the alleged wrongdoings of her husband, Mr Terry O'Malley, in order to dismiss her.
Yesterday's hearing in the High Court was told Mrs O'Malley had been sacked following a meeting of the board of governors which had been attended by Mr de Burgh.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Costello, refused to grant an injunction ordering the school to take Mrs O'Malley back.
Mr Tom Mallon, who appeared with William Fry, solicitors for the school, said his clients could not in law be expected to take her back when confidence between them had broken down.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Costello said that if Mrs O'Malley were eventually to win her action for breach of contract she would be entitled to considerable damages. But he did not think that the eventual trial judge would order the board of governors to take her back as principal and he felt it would be wrong for him to do so now.
Mr Justice Costello said Mrs O'Malley had started work at the school in 1970 and her husband had become headmaster after seven years. At this time Mrs O'Malley undertook onerous duties relating to catering and boarders.
A very unhappy history of the case had been outlined to the court in sworn statements, he said. It was sufficient for him to say that the criticisms outlined had been against Mr O'Malley.
Very significant problems had arisen between him and the board over his performance as principal. The board held that very serious concerns about bullying of certain children contrasted with extreme favouritism towards others.
Numerous attempts had been made to resolve the difficulties, culminating in an agreement that Mr and Mrs O'Malley be appointed joint principals.
It had been felt the worst excesses of Mr O'Malley in relation to favouritism and lack of communication with parents and the board would be overcome, but he continued to have a disruptive effect on the overall management of the school.
Mr Justice Costello, emphasising it was not for him to decide on the veracity of allegations made, said the board last year had expressed very grave concerns about Mr O'Malley's behaviour.
"It has been evident throughout this whole case that the board's problems emanated from Mr O'Malley's conduct," he said.
A completely new regime had been introduced last year where, under an agreement with the couple, Mrs O'Malley had been appointed principal. Her husband resigned as joint head, taking up a part-time science teacher's post.
Unfortunately this arrangement had broken down as far as the school authorities were concerned and the board had indicated to the O'Malleys that it felt entitled to terminate the agreement.
Mr O'Malley had been invited to an informal meeting of the board in June and his contract had been terminated. The court had heard that he was taking personal proceedings via the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
Shortly afterwards Mrs O'Malley had received a letter terminating her own contract.
"There is obviously a very deep dispute between the parties here and this court cannot decide this dispute," Mr Justice Costello said.
The court was being asked to grant an injunction which would have the effect of continuing her in her position of principal pending a full hearing.
Earlier Mr Callanan, Mrs O'Malley's counsel, argued that the complaints that had been made were against Mr O'Malley and not his client. Mrs O'Malley had performed her duties as principal in an entirely satisfactory way.
Mr Callanan recalled that both Mrs O'Malley and her husband had attended an informal meeting with the board on June 5th last. It had been attended by Mr de Burgh, who was not a governor. Mr de Burgh, he said, had "a role in what transpired".
Mrs O'Malley felt the board had engaged in a strange reading of the agreement to suggest that the allegations of wrongdoing against her husband constituted a breach of the agreement by her.
Mr Callanan said this was an indication of the impropriety of the conduct of the board and in particular of its chairman and of Mr de Burgh, who had attended board meetings while not being a governor himself.