Defence Forces member takes court case challenging decisions to reject medical certs

Hugh Farrell has been on long-term sick leave since May 2023

Hugh Farrell has brought judicial review proceedings against the Defence Forces chief of staff and the defence minister, arguing decisions taken during his long-term sick leave were unlawful. File picture: Cillian Sherlock/PA

A serving member of the Defence Forces who alleges he was bullied and harassed by senior officers has taken a High Court case challenging decisions to reject medical certificates from his own GP and withhold his salary.

Hugh Farrell has brought judicial review proceedings against the Defence Forces chief of staff and the defence minister, arguing decisions taken during his long-term sick leave were unlawful.

The case is listed for hearing in Dublin on Thursday.

Mr Farrell has been on long-term sick leave since May 2023. His proceedings concern decisions taken by his superiors in December 2024 and February 2025, when military medical officers declined to recommend civilian medical certificates submitted by him and instead directed him to attend medical assessments.

In a letter dated February 11, 2025, he was warned he could face disciplinary proceedings on his return to barracks and that, if he failed to return, he could be arrested by military police and placed in service custody.

Mr Farrell argued the decisions were taken without adequate regard to his medical circumstances and without affording him fair procedures. He also contends he was penalised for making complaints and protected disclosures concerning his treatment within the Defence Forces.

His case follows a series of complaints about his treatment in the military, including allegations of bullying, harassment, and intimidation by superiors.

In August 2023, the Irish Examiner reported Mr Farrell had alleged he received threatening messages from a person claiming to have links to the Kinahan cartel warning him to withdraw complaints he had made about his treatment in the Defence Forces as well as his complaints of workplace bullying and harassment.

Mr Farrell’s complaints also arose against the wider backdrop of scrutiny of how allegations of abuse and complaints have been handled within the Defence Forces, including the work of the Defence Forces Tribunal of Inquiry.

The judicial review centres on the decisions concerning the cancellation of medical certificates from his own GP as well as attendance and pay.

The Defence Forces and defence minister are contesting his application, alleging the decisions were lawful and complied with regulations governing medical certification and attendance.

The respondents say only a Defence Forces medical officer has authority to approve or reject a civilian medical certificate for the purposes of military sick leave.

They argue Mr Farrell was directed to attend a medical assessment, albeit against the advice of his own doctors, and that he failed to do so despite being notified of the requirement and the stoppage of pay consequences over Christmas of his non-attendance.

The respondents say he was consequently marked as absent without leave and his pay was withheld for a period of time.

The State and his employers also reject the contention the decisions were linked to his complaints of threats from a purported criminal gang member and protected disclosure, arguing they arose solely from the medical certification and attendance process.

The respondents further contend the judicial review has become irrelevant because Mr Farrell subsequently attended a medical assessment on March 21, 2025.

Mr Farrell claims his complaints were never properly investigated by the respondents and that the bullying continues.

The respondents have claimed his civilian sick certificates were then recommended retrospectively, his absence was removed from the personnel management system, and his pay was reinstated and backdated on April 9, 2025. They state the proceedings no longer serve a practical purpose and have asked the High Court to refuse the relief sought.