Former president of Waterford Institute of Technology sues over failure to reappoint him

Waterford Institute of Technology.

By Ann O'Loughlin

The former president of Waterford Institute of Technology, Professor Kieran Byrne, has claimed before the High Court he was humiliated and his reputation damaged after the college governing body declined to reappoint him to the post.

The decision not to reappoint Prof. Byrne as president was taken after a newspaper published an article concerning the level of expenditure of the president's office during his tenure.

Arising out of the decision he has brought proceedings against Waterford Institute of Technology (WIT) seeking damages and various declarations.

Waterford Institute of Technology rejects the claims and denies any wrongdoing. It contends the decision of the governing body not to reappoint Mr Byrne as president was taken following a fully transparent process.

It denied representing to Prof. Byrne that he had been reappointed and rejects his claims the process was flawed.

Opening the case Ercus Stewart SC for Professor Byrne said his client was appointed WIT president in 2001 for 10 years.

A subcommittee of the WIT's governing body was set up to oversee the selection of president from May 2011 onwards.

Counsel said the subcommittee, after speaking to several parties, recommended that Prof. Byrne be reappointed for another five years.

Counsel said that recommendation was not ratified by WIT's governing body at a meeting on May 12, 2011.

Counsel said in April 2011 an article appeared in the Irish Examiner Newspaper about expenses incurred by the office of the president of WIT. The article referred to figures released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Counsel said a meeting where Prof. Byrne was due to be ratified, took place the day after the article appeared.

Counsel said there was disquiet about the media report.

The decision to ratify his appointment was deferred and Prof. Byrne was subsequently informed an independent review of the expenditure was to take place.

Counsel said it has always been his client's case that the accounting methods used in responding to the FOI request were unorthodox and resulted in inaccurate records of expenditure.

Counsel said that in advance of the governing body's meeting in May 2011 his client was encouraged to resign by a member of the Higher Education Authority, which he refused to do.

On May 12, the governing body declined to ratify Prof. Byrne as WIT president for another five years, and the position was advertised.

While Prof. Byrne remained on as a member of WIT's management, counsel said his client felt he had been treated in a humiliating and disrespectful manner by the institute and he exercised his option to retire, counsel said.

WIT, represented by Mark Connaughton SC, deny the claims. Counsel said the decision was made by the governing body and it had acted at all times in a transparent manner during the selection process.

Mr Connaughton SC said it was accepted the media reports were considered by the governing body.

In reply to Mr Justice Senan Allen, counsel accepted that the contents of the media report concerning the expenditure of the president's office were something the defendant took into account when arriving at its decision.

In his proceedings against WIT, Prof. Byrne of Leoville, Dunmore Road, Waterford, claims there was a failure to conduct the selection process properly.

WIT also took irrelevant considerations into account when it decided not to ratify his reappointment and had represented and assured him that it would reappoint him, he claims.

WIT also failed to have any regard to the fact that no internal or external audit was critical on his presidency of WIT and had failed to heed his concerns about the accounting methods used to respond to the FOI requests.

He also claims there was a failure to allow him to make representations to the governing body about the media coverage and the FOI requests.

He seeks declarations that the decision of the governing body not to ratify his appointment as President was null and void and that he was entitled to be appointed to the position.

He also seeks damages for negligence and breach of duty, breach of contract and the damage he suffered to his good name, breach of legitimate expectation and misrepresentation.

The case continues.

More on this topic

Woman accused of boyfriend’s murder had ‘blue’ neck under scarf, witness tells court

Irish man facing more than 100 years in US prison for alleged hacking theft of Bitcoin given bail

President of High Court slams delay in registering power of attorney for elderly woman

Man who used Stanley knife to remove contraceptive bar from girl's arm jailed for 'hugely damaging' abuse

More in this Section

Two arrested and firearm recovered in garda operation in Dublin

Family or murdered Irish man, Jason Corbett, expecting outcome of case appeal soon

72,000 women still waiting for CervicalCheck smear-test results

Gardaí investigating after shots fired in Dublin


Lifestyle

Will Smith lets the Genie out of the bottle about Aladdin

A sparkling reception: Interest in Prosecco bubbles up in masterclass

Here’s how new parents can get more sleep, according to a Hollywood nanny

Everything you need to know about Binyavanga Wainaina’s work, as the Kenyan author dies

More From The Irish Examiner