Court awards aggravated damages for oppressive conduct by school principal in employment dispute.

Neutral Citation Number: [2011] IEHC 131

THE HIGH COURT

2008 1936 P

BETWEEN

BRIDGET SWEENEY

PLAINTIFF

AND

THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF

BALLINTEER COMMUNITY SCHOOL

DEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Herbert delivered the 24th day of March 2011

1. Between September 2005 and September 2006, a series of decisions affecting the plaintiff, approximately six in number were taken

by Dr. C. as principal teacher of a large community college (hereinafter referred to as B.C.C.), in which the plaintiff was a senior

member of the teaching staff. It is not for this Court in these proceedings to decide whether these decisions were correct or

incorrect, justified or unjustified. A report of an Investigating Officer appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Practice of

March 2003, for “dealing with complaints of bullying and harassment of staff in community and comprehensive schools”, subscribed to

and relied upon the plaintiff as a member of the Teachers Union of Ireland and, by the Board of Management of B.C.C. found that the

plaintiff had not established that these decisions amounted to bullying or harassment of her by Dr. C.. This finding was sustained by

an Appeal Board duly constituted under and in accordance with the terms of the Code of Procedure, on foot of the plaintiff’s appeal

dated the 9th March, 2010, from the decision of the Investigating Officer. I have already ruled during the course of this action that to

the extent that these decisions of Dr. C. were the subject of inquiry by the Investigating Officer and subsequently by the Appeal

Board, this Court would not permit the plaintiff to challenge these findings in the instant case and, would accept the finding that

these decisions taken by Dr. C. did not amount to bullying or harassment of the plaintiff.

2. However, these decisions and the facts surrounding them have a residual importance to the present case. The plaintiff did not

accept these decisions of Dr. C. and, in each case, to re-echo her own words under cross examination, “went beyond and outside

him”. In so doing she knew that she was taking, what she herself described, as a “drastic step”. She accepted in evidence that on

the 2nd September, 2005, she told Dr. C. that unless she received what she believed was promised funding from B.C.C. for the

second year of her four year degree course in counselling and psychotherapy, “she would do something drastic”. In cross examination

the plaintiff denied that she had threatened to take sick leave for a year and insisted that by saying that she “would do something

drastic” she meant that she would, “go beyond and outside him”.

3. It is not for this Court to decide in the present case whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to “go beyond and outside” Dr. C. in

relation to these decisions or, even if such recourse existed whether she employed correct procedures in availing of it.

4. However, what is important in my judgment to the proper understanding and determination of this action is that these decisions of

Dr. C. and the plaintiff’s reaction to them resulted, I find, in escalating mutual distrust between them as disagreement followed

disagreement. Eventually, I find that the plaintiff came to believe that every action or omission on the part of Dr. C. whether actually

or, as she perceived it, affecting her, was part of a conscious and deliberate campaign by him to bully and harass her.

5. These most regrettable circumstances caused her on the 4th October, 2006, to make a formal complaint of bullying and

harassment through a firm of solicitors to the Rev. Chairman of the Board of Management of B.C.C.. I accept the evidence of the Rev.

Chairman that this was the first he had heard of the allegation. He was very shocked and he took legal advice before acknowledging

this letter by a letter dated the 16th October, 2006. He accepted that he had been aware since October 2005 that the plaintiff and

Dr. C. had not been speaking to each other but he told the court that this was not at all unusual amongst teachers. I find that prior

to this, in May and June 2006, three teachers on the staff of B.C.C. who were the then serving committee of the Teachers Union of

Ireland in B.C.C. had attended a number of meetings with Dr. C. in which they had put to him the plaintiff’s concerns about his

behaviour towards her. I am satisfied that at least one of these meetings Dr. C. behaved very aggressively towards a female teacher

almost resulting in physical intervention by the two male teachers present. It is not necessary for the purpose of deciding the present

action to determine whether Dr. C. is correct in his recollection that no express allegation of bullying or harassment by him of the

plaintiff was raised at any of these meetings and accordingly that the contents of the letter of the 4th October, 2006, came as a

very great surprise to him. By a letter dated the 7th November, 2006, Dr. C. denied these accusations and furnished particulars to the

Board of Management of B.C.C. of what he alleged was bullying of him by the plaintiff.

6. Following a considerable exchange of views in correspondence, which on occasion became unnecessarily acrimonious, on the 13th

November, 2006, a practising junior counsel with extensive experience and with an area of specialisation in the Law relating to

Education in Ireland was appointed under the Code of Practice as “Investigating Officer” to inquire into these very serious complaints

by the plaintiff of bullying and harassment on the part of the Dr. C.. In furnishing very belated details of her claim to the Investigating

Officer and to Dr. C. in April 2007, the plaintiff claimed that she had been bullied and harassed by Dr. C. since 1992. However, at the

hearing of the instant case, she accepted that this alleged behaviour on the part of Dr. C. only commenced in October 2005, following

her appeal against the filling of four “A” posts of responsibility in B.C.C.. The Investigating Officer furnished her report on the 26th

October, 2007 and a copy was furnished to the plaintiff.

7. At this point a few biographical details of the plaintiff and of her career are in order. The plaintiff was born on the 8th July, 1954.

She separated from her spouse after, what I was informed, was for her a very traumatic marriage followed by a very difficult court

separation. She has two children who are now young adults. She qualified as a teacher in 1975. After qualifying she taught in Dublin

until 1979 and in Lisbon from 1979 to 1980. In 1980 she became a permanent member of the staff of B.C.C.. In 1993, Dr. C. was

appointed principal of B.C.C.. In 1999 the plaintiff became Home-School Liaison Coordinator at B.C.C.. In the circumstances of this

case I find it to be of considerable significance that the duties of the holder of this important and responsible post were spelled out in

the “job description” as being, inter alia, “to consult, liaise and collaborate with the Principal” of B.C.C.. It is further of significance

that the plaintiff told the court that she regarded these as merely guidelines and not necessarily as binding on her. In May 2002, the

plaintiff was elected to and served a three year term as a member of the Board of Management of B.C.C., as one of two teacher

representatives on that Board. In October 2004, she commenced a four year degree course in counselling and psychotherapy. This

involved some limited absences from work. Over the years from 1980 onwards the plaintiff had, through evening courses, obtained

diplomas in work related skills such as drugs awareness and personal development counselling. In September 2005, she was appointed

learning support teacher at B.C.C.. I find that the evidence clearly establishes that up to this point the plaintiff was regarded by her

colleagues at B.C.C. including Dr. C. as a most dedicated and progressive teacher who had done enormous work in extending the

educational services provided by B.C.C. to deprived families and especially to children at risk.

8. Unfortunately, all of this came to an end in October 2005, when the plaintiff was unsuccessful in her application for one of four

category “A” posts of responsibility within B.C.C.. I find that the plaintiff consider it most unjust that she should have been passed

over for these posts having regard to her qualifications, her seniority and her record of exemplary and innovative service as Home-

School Liaison Coordinator. She attributed her lack of success to the malign influence of Dr. C.. I accept the evidence that Dr. C.

took no part whatever in the actual decision making and, had no vote in the selection of the successful candidates. I accept that he

was present at the meetings of the Appointments Committee as secretary and to keep the record. However, there was compelling

evidence before the court which I accept that even if Dr. C. took no part in the selection process he totally approved of the result,

which he did not wish to see changed. He then made what can only be described as a series of calamitous blunders which would

cause a reasonable observer, reasonably to conclude that he was determined that the plaintiff would not under any circumstances be

awarded one of these category “A” posts of responsibility in B.C.C.:-

He advised the plaintiff incorrectly, though I am quite satisfied not maliciously, that she could not appeal this decision.

On the 9th November, 2005, a letter under his signature was sent congratulating the successful applicants when, I am

satisfied he knew of the plaintiff’s appeal against the decision. I find his explanation for this action unconvincing. In a

letter of equal date he apologised to the plaintiff, but then cast doubt on the sincerity of this apology by notifying these

teachers of meetings involving “A” post issues on the 16th November, 2005, and the 23rd November, 2005.

He prevailed on a member of the teaching staff of B.C.C. who had been a friend of the plaintiff for more than twenty

years to endeavour to persuade her to withdraw her appeal and to apply for a “B” category post which he indicated she

could be assured of getting. This offer was very properly declined by the plaintiff. This other teacher, very moved, told

the court that she realised in hindsight that she should not have done this as it would probably result, as it did in the loss

of the plaintiff’s friendship.

9. I find on the evidence that the plaintiff, who with very good reason, regarded herself as a very senior and experienced teacher

who had contributed greatly to the work of B.C.C. felt deeply hurt, disappointed, humiliated and betrayed by these actions of Dr. C.. I

find that the plaintiff reacted by deciding to have as little personal contact with Dr. C. as possible. On the 30th October, 2005, the

plaintiff appealed successfully against the procedure adopted in filling these “A” posts. The plaintiff was not successful in obtaining

one of these posts in the subsequent re-selection process. For his part, I am satisfied, that Dr. C. perceived the plaintiff’s appeal

against the “A” post appointments, which I am satisfied on the evidence was entirely unprecedented, as a further going “beyond and

outside him” by the plaintiff and, as a challenge to his authority as Principal of B.C.C.. I find that his reaction was to behave

thereafter towards the plaintiff in a hostile and dismissive manner and to disparage and marginalise her in the eyes of other teachers

and members of the non teaching staff at B.C.C.. Unfortunately also, those colleagues whose promotions to “A” posts of responsibility

was jeopardised by the plaintiff’s appeal and their friends on the teaching staff also ostracised the plaintiff.

10. Specific events of which the plaintiff complains and which occurred between October 2005 and September 2006, - the music

examination incident; being urgently summoned to Dr. C.’s office during an inspection by an Inspector of the Department of

Education; unwarranted requests to attend at the college office and, especially the forcing open of the door of her office and the

removal to a different room of her effects including very confidential files in July 2006, during the summer vacation, - an action which

elicited a letter of complaint from the college committee of the Teachers Union of Ireland dated the 11th December, 2006, - all served

to worsen this totally undesirable state of affairs.

11. I do not accept the bona fides of the explanation offered for the admitted entry by one of the college caretakers, acting on the

instructions of Dr. C., into the plaintiff’s office in B.C.C. by slipping the lock with a knife and, the moving of the contents of that office

to the Home-School Liaison room. Absent any emergency, ie. fire or flood or, faced with an inability after reasonable and proper

attempts to contact the plaintiff and a pressing need in the interests of the college to have the rooms interchanged, what was done

on this occasion on the instructions of Dr. C. was high handed and inexcusable. The fact, which I accept, that the college caretaker

moved everything very carefully and put everything in exactly the same position in the other room and did not open anything does

not mitigate the enormity of this conduct in the least. Neither does the fact that the other teacher made no complaint or that the

plaintiff was in any event returning to the Home-School Liaison room at the start of the new term.

12. In addition, the plaintiff in retrospect, now regarded the September 2005, problem in securing what she regarded as promised

funding by B.C.C. for the academic costs of the second year of her degree course in counselling and psychotherapy, as yet a further

example of harassment and bullying of her by Dr. C.. The Investigating Officer and the Appeal Board appointed and constituted in

accordance with the terms of the Code of Procedure held that these events were not shown to have involved bullying and

harassment as defined in the Code. It is there defined as a, “destructive and malicious attempt to target a particular individual”. I

have already ruled that so far as these events are concerned the plaintiff is bound by these findings of the Investigating Officer and

the Appeal Board which, if the issue had fallen to be determined by it, are in accordance with the evidence led before this Court.

13. As almost invariably occurs in such divisive situations some teaching staff members of B.C.C., some members of the Board of

Management of B.C.C. and, even some persons from outside B.C.C. who in the course of their official duties became involved in these

events, came to take a partisan stance in favour of the plaintiff or of Dr. C.. I found the evidence of a number of witnesses in this

case to be unreliable and therefore unhelpful for this reason.

14. Between the 31st August, 2006 and the 27th March, 2007, the plaintiff was absent from work and furnished each week a medical

certificate from her General Medical Practitioner, Dr. Philip McMahon, that she was suffering from work related stress. The quite

extraordinary manner in which these certificates were furnished, - they were found by the clerical officers each Monday morning

pushed under the door of the general office and not given or sent to the Deputy-Principal the person entitled to require and to

receive them, - demonstrates in my judgment the continuing concern on the part of the plaintiff to avoid any risk of having to

communicate personally with Dr. C., even to the extent of refusing to furnish these very important documents from her own

perspective directly to management. The clerical officers further informed the court that each Monday morning a man or a woman

would telephone the general office and state that the plaintiff would be absent from work that week. These callers never identified

themselves to the clerical officers.

15. I find utterly indefensible, the manner in which the plaintiff chose to return to work at B.C.C. on the 28th March, 2007. She must

have realised that this was bound to be seen by Dr. C. with every justification as a calculated and wholly deliberate insult to him as

Principal of the college. I accept the evidence of the Rev. Chairman of the Board of Management of B.C.C. at the time, and, the

evidence of the present Chairperson of the Board who between them have each 30 years experience in community/comprehensive

schools and large private schools that the manner of the plaintiff‘s return to B.C.C. after an absence of 209 certified days was

“unbelievable and totally unacceptable”. On the 27th March, 2007, the plaintiff’s present Solicitors acting, one must infer on her

instructions or with her consent, sent by Email a letter to the Rev. Chairman of the Board of Management of B.C.C. at his private

address notifying him of her intention to return to work on the following day. I accept the evidence of the addressee that he did not

receive this communication until after the plaintiff had in fact returned to work. By a letter dated the 12th April, 2007, he wrote to

the plaintiff’s Solicitors notifying them of this and asking why no notice of her intended return to the college had been given to Dr. C..

16. I find on the evidence of Dr. C., the former and the present chairpersons of the Board of Management of B.C.C. and the Deputy-

Principal of B.C.C. that Dr. C. was entitled to receive at least some days advance notice that the plaintiff intended to return to work

on the 28th March, 2007. I find that he was in fact entirely unaware that she had done so until they met accidentally in a corridor

some 30 minutes, on her own evidence, after she had entered the college. On the balance of probabilities I am prepared to find that

this extraordinary behaviour on the part of the plaintiff was not, as Dr. C. perceived it, a conscious and deliberate attempt on her

part to insult him and to undermine his authority as Principal of the College but was a further indication of her anxiety about

communicating with him. In my judgment her failure to notify D. C. in advance of her intention to return to work is not explained or

excused by her having proffered a medical certificate of fitness to return to work and a further certificate from Dr. McMahon covering

her absence from work in the previous week, to the Deputy-Principal in the staff room earlier that morning and, being told by him to

give them in at the office later in the day. I am satisfied on the evidence that apart from her failure to give proper notice to Dr. C.

the plaintiff’s return to work did not in fact give rise to any staffing or rescheduling difficulties in the college on that day.

17. I accept the plaintiff’s evidence that Dr. C. said to her, “What’s this, what are you doing here, who knows you are back, did you

inform the Board of Management”. There can be no doubt but that Dr. C. was entitled to put these questions to the plaintiff and even

though the manner in which they were put may have been lacking in diplomacy and somewhat brusque, nonetheless I do not consider

that in the extraordinary circumstances it amounted to bullying or harassment of the plaintiff. I am prepared to accept the plaintiff’s

evidence that Dr. C. spoke loudly on the occasion and even turned red in the face, even though I have had an opportunity of closely

observing him in various circumstances throughout the trial of this action and I never noticed him becoming red in the face. However,

there was evidence which I accept, from a number of teachers who as members of the Teachers Union of Ireland had occasion to

become involved in these differences between Dr. C. and the plaintiff, that on a number of occasions in meetings with Dr. C. he

behaved with considerable and in their opinion unwarranted aggression towards them. However, unlike the case of the plaintiff, these

exchanges all appear to have ended amicably and with handshakes all around. Given the sudden unexpectedness of his encounter

with the plaintiff, his immediate assumption that she was back at work and, his almost certain anger and resentment at not having

been notified in advance by the plaintiff that she was coming back to work, I think it not all unlikely that Dr. C. spoke loudly and

aggressively as the plaintiff alleges. I do not however, accept that he became physically aggressive and, “came right up against her”

as she claimed in her evidence. I find this to be improbable. In describing the difficulties which arose in September 2005, in relation to

the provisions of funding for the second year of her degree course, the plaintiff claimed that during a meeting with Dr. C. in his office,

he had become aggressive, had flung down his keys, had jumped up from the table, red faced and with eyes blazing and had invaded

her body space. However, she made no complaint about this alleged behaviour at the time. In fact she agreed that things were good

with Dr. C. at that time. On the 28th March, 2007, the confrontation with Dr. C. had occurred in an open corridor in what appears to

have been the most public part of the College, where everything occurring was capable of being observed by other teachers, non

teaching staff, pupils or even parents of pupils. Regardless of how he may have felt on the occasion, I do not regard it as credible

that Dr. C. if he had any thought at all for his position as Principal of B.C.C. would have behaved in such a place in the manner

suggested by the plaintiff.

18. The plaintiff gave evidence that her answer to these questions by Dr. C. was to say “I am not talking to you unless someone else

is present”. She explained this answer by telling the court that she needed another person to be present so that person could be a

witness to what Dr. C. was saying and doing as he would later deny both. The plaintiff denied that this was a pre-meditated response

on her part. I am unable to accept this. The evidence adduced in relation to other incidents after the 28th March, 2007, together

with this incident satisfied me that the plaintiff returned to B.C.C. with a plan to avoid contact with Dr. C. wherever possible and

where not possible to stand up to him and insist that any communication between them take place in the presence of some third

party acceptable to her. I find it also of significance that this incident was immediately followed by a letter from the plaintiff’s

solicitors to the Board of Management of B.C.C. dated the 30th March, 2007.

19. After this exchange the plaintiff told the court that she noticed that the door of the business studies room, about ten feet away,

was open. She entered this room where a male colleague, (and one of the Teachers Union of Ireland College Committee), was

teaching a class. She told the court that her purpose was to ask this teacher to watch while she went down the corridor as she felt

stressed and afraid. I am unable to accept that this as the reason why the plaintiff went into her colleague’s room. I am satisfied that

she went there, not as Dr. C. perceived it to convey negative information about him in front of a class, but pursuant to her plan to

involve a third party immediately in all confrontations which she might have with Dr. C.. I am satisfied on the evidence that this

colleague was discomfited by the plaintiff’s sudden intrusion into his class and was most anxious that she should not linger in the

room. I accept this teacher’s evidence that the plaintiff was quivering and appeared to be fighting back tears and had said to him,

“He is at me again, its happening again”. I also accept this teacher’s evidence that as they were speaking a knock came to the door

and Dr. C. put his head into the room, beckoned this teacher over to the door and said to him “You cannot have people invading your

room, you’d want to look after yourself”.

20. I am satisfied that this teacher, who had been a member of the Teachers Union of Ireland Committee that had spoken to Dr. C. in

2006, on behalf of the plaintiff, reasonably and rationally interpreted this statement by Dr. C. as a threat, that he would suffer some

detriment for speaking to the plaintiff and not insisting that she leave his room immediately. I find that Dr. C. had full authority to

circulate a notice to all the teachers that they should not enter a colleague’s classroom while a class was in progress. I am satisfied

that on this occasion Dr. C. was referring solely to the plaintiff whom he disparagingly described as having “invaded” this other

teacher’s classroom. I find that this intervention at this time and in these terms by Dr. C. was a destructive and malicious targeting of

the plaintiff and amounted to bullying of the plaintiff within the definition of the March 2003 Code of Practice to which both Dr. C. and

the plaintiff had subscribed and had invoked. But apart altogether from that definition in my judgment these words were hostile,

offensive, unnecessary and disparaging to the plaintiff who was a very senior teacher in the college and would amount to “bullying”

within the meaning of the 2002 (now 2007) Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying

At Work, or even within the ordinary dictionary definition of that word. In my judgment a particularly vicious form of bullying involves

isolating the victim in the work place by influencing others by actual or suggested threats to their own interests and by undermining

the victim’s standing in the organisation and amongst colleagues by disparaging references. In my judgment this was the first

indication of a firm determination on the part of Dr. C. to brook no positive interference, as he saw it, by the plaintiff in his

management of the college.

21. The plaintiff told the court and, this teacher accepts, that the plaintiff left his classroom and ran down the corridor and into the

ladies restroom which was about twenty feet away. He said that Dr. C. was not in the corridor at this time. I accept the evidence of

Dr. C. that he had gone back to his office and had telephoned the Deputy-Principal and the Rev. Chairman of the Board of

Management to advise them of what had occurred. I accept his evidence that he did not know when the plaintiff had left the

classroom or where she had gone. The plaintiff gave evidence that when she emerged from the ladies restroom Dr. C. was waiting

outside the door. She said that she walked down the corridor and he followed. She then ran into the home-School Liaison room and

into her office adjoining that room and locked the door. Using her mobile telephone she immediately contacted two female colleagues,

who were the then teachers’ representatives on the Board of Management of B.C.C. When they arrived she unlocked the door and

told them what had occurred.

22. I reject as utterly improbable this evidence of the plaintiff that Dr. C. had waited outside the ladies rest room for ten minutes until

the plaintiff re-emerged. Dr. C. told the court that the first time this suggestion had been made was during the hearing of the action.

I doubt very much if even the most crass and insensitive pupil would do such a thing. While in that room the plaintiff could not have

known where Dr. C. was. I believe that it was entirely coincidental that Dr. C. was walking down the corridor when she re-emerged

from the ladies restroom. Dr. C. is a married man. He is, as the Rev. former Chairman of the Board of Management very aptly described

him, “the Managing Director” of a considerable enterprise. The door to the ladies restroom is on a corridor of the college along which

all manner of persons pass and re-pass. It is in my view therefore, an indication of what Dr. Mohan described as “disturbed

perceptions” that the plaintiff should make such an allegation against Dr. C..

23. Unfortunately, the matter did not end here. The plaintiff and one of the other teachers whom she had summoned gave evidence

that after the plaintiff had unlocked the Home-School Liaison room door, they saw Dr. C. looking in the window of the room from the

yard outside the window. I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that this window is approximately eight feet in length and

eighteen inches in height. It is made of Perspex, approximately one third of an inch thick which over the ten years of its existence

had become discoloured, yellowed and clouded. In addition this window is covered throughout its length by very old and dusty thick

net curtains hung in place in the 1970s. Further, the window is generally very dusty on the outside. I am satisfied on the evidence

that during daylight hours a person inside this room looking out could only see the shadow of someone outside the window looking in

with not even sufficient outline definition to determine whether that person was male or female. If the plaintiff and this other teacher

saw someone outside the window on this occasion, I am satisfied that because of the previous events they surmised that it was Dr.

C.. I accept his evidence that he did not go out into this yard and look in the window of the Home-School Liaison room.

24. I am satisfied that the events of the 24th October, 2007, when the plaintiff was recorded in the college attendance book as

having been absent from work when she was in fact attending an authorised “In-school training course” and ought to have been

marked “In service” was a simple mistake. I am also satisfied on the evidence that this mistake was rapidly corrected and that the

plaintiff suffered no financial loss as a result of the error. I do not accept that this incident was deliberately contrived by Dr. C. to

bully or to harass the plaintiff.

25. On the 20th November, 2007, a further confrontation occurred between the plaintiff and Dr. C.. The parent of a pupil in the

school was loudly abusing another teacher for disciplining her son, (he had told that teacher to “shut up”). I find on the evidence,

particularly by reference to a contemporaneous note made by the teacher in question and to a letter written by her to the Board of

Management and dated the 13th December, 2007, that Dr. C., who just happened to be in the vicinity, heard the noise and came into

the classroom and tried to mediate between this teacher and the parent. I accept the evidence of the teacher that she then noticed

the plaintiff, with whom she was not on speaking terms, standing in the doorway of the classroom. Dr. C. gave evidence, which I

accept, that the plaintiff ought not to have been there at all. I accept the evidence of this teacher and of Dr. C. that he was

insisting that the parent go with him to his office to discuss the matter. Instead this parent ran over to the plaintiff who asked her if

she was all-right to which the plaintiff replied, “Do you see what’s happening here”. The plaintiff told the court that as Home-School

Liaison Coordinator she considered that she had a duty to represent all disadvantaged parents. I accept the evidence of Dr. C. that

the plaintiff then advised the parent not to go with Dr. C. to his office unless someone else also went and that she should write to

the Board of Management of B.C.C. about the matter. I am satisfied on the evidence that the parent then said that she would not go

with Dr. C. to his office unless the plaintiff accompanied her. This was not acceptable to Dr. C.. I find on the evidence that he went

over to the plaintiff in the doorway and said to her, “I am giving you an order, I am directing you to return to your room”. The plaintiff

returned to her room and the parent went with Dr. C. to his office. Later the teacher was sent for and the parent apologised to her

and they shook hands. I find that the plaintiff had no reason to come to or to remain in the door of this teacher’s classroom and, had

no right or duty to interfere as she did. Her advice to the parent in the circumstances was grossly irregular, offensive to Dr. C. and, a

challenge to his authority as Principal of the College. I find that Dr. C. on this occasion acted properly and proportionally and entirely

within the scope of his authority as Principal of B.C.C. I find that on this occasion he neither bullied nor harassed the plaintiff.

26. I find that the quite extraordinary events which occurred at B.C.C. on the 26th November, 2007, came about because the plaintiff

was by this time in effect working entirely independently of Dr. C. and the Deputy-Principal of the College. An aspect of this

unsatisfactory state of affairs was that the plaintiff was seeking to adhere to a time-table which she had operated prior to September

2005, or, to a new time-table prepared for her by another teacher, but which had not been approved by the Deputy-Principal or even

seen by him. I find that the Deputy-Principal, whose sole prerogative it was to approve the daily time-table for the entire College was

now also being avoided by the plaintiff who had come to regard him as a supporter of Dr. C.. I find that the Leaving Certificate class

which was scheduled, by reference to the college time-table, prepared by the Deputy-Principal, to use the computer room in the

College at the time was unable to enter this room because the door was locked and the room was occupied by the plaintiff who was

teaching computer skills to three parents of pupils at the college as part of the Home-School Liaison programme. I do not consider it

necessary to determine how to by whom the door came to be locked. One of the school caretakers gave evidence that and had

unlocked the door to this room. He saw the plaintiff entering the room and he had informed her that by reference to the daily time-

table which he had been given that morning by the Deputy-Principal that another class was due to use the room. This class of about

fifteen pupils had then arrived. The caretaker said that he went and told the Deputy-Principal that there seemed to be a double

booking and that this class was unable to access the computer room and was standing about in the corridor. Significantly, the

Deputy-Principal told the court that he had said to Dr. C. that he would deal with the matter as it was his problem and, accompanied

by the caretaker immediately went to the area. For some unstated or unexplained reason, Dr. C. had followed. There can be no doubt

on the evidence that the door of the computer room was now locked and that the Deputy-Principal knocked loudly on the door which

was not opened. As neither the Deputy-Principal nor Dr. C. had keys with them, the caretaker who had a key then unlocked the door

to this classroom. I am satisfied that the Deputy-Principal entered the room first followed by Dr. C. I am satisfied on the evidence

that they did not “bang” into the room shouting and waving their hands about as alleged by the plaintiff.

27. I find on the evidence, with particular reference to a contemporaneous note made by Dr. C. on the 26th November, 2007, that as

soon as he and the Deputy-Principal entered the room, the plaintiff, who had been standing beside a parent at a computer console,

turned towards them saying loudly, “Here’s the Principal and the Deputy-Principal coming to bully me”. I am satisfied that the Deputy-

Principal then told the parents that there had been a misunderstanding over booking and asked them to turn off the computers and to

leave the room as another class was waiting. The parents hesitated, - a wholly natural reaction in the circumstances, - and I accept

that Dr. C. and the Deputy-Principal then moved around the room saying “Come on, come on, out you go, out you go”. The plaintiff

then protested that they were properly in the room as she had booked it and she pointed to a time-table fixed to the back of the

door. The Deputy-Principal told the court that he had examined this A-4 size document and that he had never seen or approved of it.

The plaintiff then told the parents not to leave the room and to continue with their work. Dr. C. pointed out that he was the Principal

of the College and insisted that they leave. One of the parents told the plaintiff to telephone the Department of Education and the

plaintiff had replied that she did not know the number. The evidence clearly establishes that Dr. C. then said to this particular parent,

“Turn off that computer or I will call the gardaí”. To this the parent responded, “Well get them then”. The plaintiff then used her

mobile telephone to summon the two teachers who were then serving as Teachers Representatives on the Board of Management of

B.C.C.. Dr. C. said to the plaintiff “Don’t get another teacher out of her class”. One of these ladies then arrived followed very shortly

by the other. One of them suggested to Dr. C. that perhaps both groups could use the computer room simultaneously. Dr. C. would

not agree to this proposal and I am satisfied that his reasons for not agreeing were rational and reasonable. The parents then left the

computer room and went with the plaintiff to the Home-School Liaison room. One at least of the parents wrote to the Board of

Management of B.C.C. about this incident.

28. In my judgment, the behaviour of Dr. C. towards the plaintiff on this occasion was oppressive and bullying. However extremely

provocative the plaintiff’s own behaviour may have been and however much her actions may have been interfering with the smooth

running of the college on the 26th November, 2007, she should not have been publicly disparaged and humiliated by Dr. C. in front of

the parents present. Her countermanding his direction to the parents to leave the computer room may properly be regarded as a

amounting to scandalous insubordination. However, in my view it did not cause the bullying but was a consequence of it. I find that

there was no necessity at all for Dr. C. to have been in the room on this occasion. The Deputy-Principal could have dealt with the

matter as a simple double booking of the computer room, something which the evidence showed had happened in the past. But having

chosen to enter, Dr. C. should have disregarded, for the moment at least, the locked door and the plaintiff’s first remarks, explained

the position to her with regard to the other class and asked her to inform the parents present of the difficulty and invite their

cooperation in the matter. In the event, he treated her and the parents as trespassers and trouble makers. It is significant that Dr. C.

told the court that he had felt slandered and undermined and that the plaintiff was embarking on a course of confrontation with the

management. Dr. C. later telephoned the Rev. Chairman of the Board of Management who promised to raise the matter at the meeting

of the Board scheduled to take place on the 12th December, 2007. If it was raised no action was taken. By letters dated the 28th

November, 2007, and the 14th December, 2007, Dr. C. invited the plaintiff to meet him and the Deputy-Principal to discuss the

incidents of the 20th November, 2007 and the 26th November, 2007. However, the plaintiff was unable to see her way to attending

such a meeting insisting that the matter was something which required to be dealt at Board of Management level and involving her

solicitors.

29. The evidence in this case establishes, in my judgment, that the plaintiff considered that she was entitled to very considerable

autonomy in the running the Home-School Liaison Programme at B.C.C.. It was never suggested by anyone during the course of the

hearing that the plaintiff was anything other than a skilled, experienced and dedicated teacher. However, she no longer

communicated with Dr. C. the Principal of the College or with the Deputy-Principal of the College. Having retaken her place on the

C.A.R.E. Team on the 17th April, 2007, on resuming her position as Home-School Liaison Coordinator, the plaintiff, following a number

of disagreements with other members of the Team who had complained that she was dominating the proceedings at meetings and,

because she said that the “body language” employed by other Team members was discouraging her at these meeting, ceased to

attend the meetings or to report to the CARE Team after the 13th October, 2007. The effect of this was that from the 13th October,

2007, onwards nobody in authority in B.C.C. really knew where the plaintiff was or what she was doing during her working day. I am

however satisfied that she was carrying out her duties as Home-School Liaison Co-Coordinator with the same dedication as she had

always devoted to her work.

30. Dr. C. for good and sufficient reasons in my judgment, in September, 2007, had declined to permit the plaintiff to function in the

college in the specific role of a Counsellor/Psychotherapist. He advised her that it was ultimately a matter to be decided by the Board

of Management of B.C.C., but that he would feel obliged to argue against such an appointment. I do not accept the plaintiff’s

contention that by permitting her to do the degree course, Dr. C. had thereby agreed that she would become a Counsellor in the

College. Unfortunately, the plaintiff saw this as yet another form of bullying of her by Dr. C. I am quite satisfied that it was not. His

decision was taken within the scope of his authority and, as I have already found for reasons which were both rational and

reasonable.

31. I find that since her return to B.C.C. on the 28th March, 2007, the plaintiff had been continuously treated by Dr. C. in a bullying

and aggressive manner. She had been marginalised and treated by him with unrelenting hostility and contempt. This “freezing out” as

she aptly described it caused the plaintiff anxiety and stress. She found particularly hurtful and damaging the fact that when

addressing others in her company Dr. C. totally ignored her as if she was not there at all. For anybody, but especially a woman and a

senior teacher in the college, this was a particularly savage form of bullying, targeting her and clearly designed to break her will to

disagree with any future decisions of his. In all his dealings with the plaintiff after the 28th March, 2007, I find that Dr. C. behaved

like an offended tyrant and not as a fellow teacher and long time colleague of the plaintiff who had been appointed to the senior

management position in the college. It is certainly not an excuse for this conduct on his part that the plaintiff’s own behaviour in this

period, in general and towards him in particular, was inappropriate and, should not have been tolerated by the Board of Management

of B.C.C..

32. I find, that at the end of November 2007, Dr. C. had started to become anxious and concerned because of his almost total lack of

information as to where the plaintiff was or what she was doing during college hours in her capacity as Home-School Liaison

Coordinator. I accept his evidence that he had come to be concerned that the college and its Board of Management might become

involved in legal or other problems arising out of the plaintiffs’ unreported and unsanctioned activities as Home-School Liaison

coordinator. I accept his evidence that he was particularly anxious because were such to occur he considered that he would be

criticised or held responsible because as Principal of the college he had an obligation to the Board of Management of B.C.C. and to the

Department of Education to ensure that all teachers were fully and properly discharging their duties. In these litigious and

confrontational times I am satisfied that this was a genuine and reasonable concern on the part of Dr. C..

33. Considerable controversy arose during the hearing of this action as to whether a letter dated the 15th December, 2007, from Dr.

C. to the Rev. Chairman of the Board of Management of B.C.C. setting out in detail the problems he was experiencing with the plaintiff

in the day to day management of the college, was in fact written on that date or whether it was written later and backdated in order

to justify his employment of a private investigator to carry our surveillance on the plaintiff. I am satisfied on the evidence, particularly

by reference to the contemporaneous diary entry by the Rev, Chairman of the Board of Management that this letter was handed to

him by Dr. C. in the college on Wednesday, 19th December, 2007. I am also satisfied that the Rev. Chairman adverted to this letter at

the meeting of the Board of Management held on the 10th January, 2008, and, that incomplete transcripts of this letter on yellow

paper were on the Board table at this meeting but were not actually distributed to the individual Board members. I am satisfied that

there was a brief discussion about this letter at the meeting and that the Board decided to invite Dr. C. and the plaintiff to attend a

meeting of the Board on the 17th January, 2008 and explain their respective difficulties. I am satisfied on the evidence that Dr. C.

was willing to adopt this course. However, by a letter from her solicitors, the plaintiff indicated that she was not prepared to attend

at such a meeting without her solicitor being present as she had concerns about the impartiality of the Board. This was unacceptable

to the Board and the meeting did not take place and no further action was taken by the Board of Management.

34. The letter dated the 15th December, 2007, again came before the Board of Management of B.C.C. when a further letter of

complaint dated the 2nd April 2008 from Dr. C., and which referred to his earlier letter of the 15th December, 2007, was placed before

the Board of Management by its solicitors. However, by this time the matter had passed into the field of litigation and the Board of

Management did not consider it further until the 1st October, 2008. On that date the Board of Management under its present

Chairperson, having taken advice from the National Coordinator of Home-School Liaison Schemes wrote to the plaintiff seeking details

of plans, records, identity of families visited and other matters. After further written requests the matter concluded with a letter from

the solicitors for the plaintiff to the Board of Management stating that, “As soon as she is medically fit we will hold a consultation to

deal with your queries”. This quite extraordinary situation was resolved by the plaintiff requesting and being granted permission by the

Department of Education to take early retirement.

35. This problem as to the authenticity of the letter dated the 15th December, 2007, of the letter dated the 2nd April, 2008, and of

the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Management on the 5th December, 2006, all arose because several different texts of

these letters and of these minutes were disclosed and put in evidence before the court during the course of evidence. While I

consider that the trenchant criticism and close scrutiny by Senior Counsel for the plaintiff of what appears to have been a quite

extraordinary practice on the part of Dr. C. of adding to these documents after they had been sent or circulated was entirely

justified, I am not satisfied that this was done with a deliberate intent to mislead, though in fact that could well have been the result.

I accept that the partial transcription of the letter of the 15th December, 2007, on yellow paper was simply that and nothing more

and that it is quite unnecessary to endeavour to discover why or by whom this was done. I am satisfied that this letter of the 15th

December, 20007, was a wholly genuine attempt on the part of Dr. C. to persuade the Board of Management of B.C.C. to take action

in the matter. I am equally satisfied that what they did, though well intentioned, was altogether too little and too late.

36. It is unnecessary for me to consider what other course Dr. C. might have adopted in these circumstances. I am satisfied that he

had endeavoured but with no success to persuade the Inspectorate of the Department of Education to become involved. Suffice it to

say that I find that the course which he did in fact choose to pursue was wholly inappropriate. I find that the decision of Dr. C. on

the 10th January, 2008, to engage the services of a private investigator for four days in early February 2008, to carry out a covert

surveillance on the plaintiff during college hours amounted to a most serious harassment of the plaintiff by him. The activities of this

private investigator were brought to an end by the intervention of An Garda Síochána and by an Order of this Court (Laffoy J.) made

at the suit of the plaintiff on the 10th April, 2008. I find that the plaintiff has not established on the balance of probabilities that on

the 15th September, 2008, and the 16th September, 2008, Dr. C. in breach of the Order of this Court made on the 10th April, 2008,

again himself followed the plaintiff.

37. I accept the evidence of the plaintiff that on a number of occasions in December 2007, in the course of her work as Home-School

Liaison Coordinator at B.C.C. she found it necessary to drive to the two Resource Centres associated with the college. She claims

that on a number of these occasions she was followed by Dr. C. in his motor car. I am satisfied that she reported her concerns to the

two teacher representatives on the Board of Management of the B.C.C. and to the three college committee members of the Teachers

Union of Ireland. They do not appear to have taken any action in the matter. One must acknowledge the right of Dr. C. as Principal of

B.C.C. to visit these Resource Centres whenever he saw fit or the occasion required. Dr. C. denied that he followed the plaintiff on

any occasion. There seems little doubt that on one occasion when the plaintiff claims Dr. C. had followed her to one such Resource

Centre that he was in fact there to meet members of An Garda Síochána in relation to a break-in and serious vandalism at the centre.

I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has discharged the onus on her of establishing on the balance of probabilities that she had been

bullied by Dr. C. by being monitored and stalked by him in this fashion.

38. I am satisfied from the evidence and, from my observations of the plaintiff in giving evidence, that she is a lady well capable of

asserting and defending what she considers to be her rights. Nonetheless she is still a woman and for a woman on her own to have

two men following her about in a car during her working day must be been a truly terrifying experience for her. I unhesitatingly accept

her evidence with respect to these events. It is necessary to give a brief summary of what I accept occurred on the 7th February,

2008, and some other days.

39. When the plaintiff drove away from her home on the 7th February, 2008, at 09.15 hours she felt that she was being followed by

another motor car with two occupants. She took various evasive measures but this care remained following hers. She made a mobile

telephone call to her daughter who appears to have taken the not unreasonable view that her mother was suffering from over

vigilance due to work related stress and sought to reassure her. The plaintiff was not reassured and made a mobile telephone call to

her brother and explained her fears to him. He advised her to keep a close watch on this car and to keep in contact with him. When

the plaintiff parked her motor car at B.C.C. she observed this other car being parked nearby.

40. On entering the college the plaintiff told one of the teachers representatives on the Board of Management whom she felt she

could trust, what was occurring. She then informed one of the clerical staff in the college office that she was going to one of the

Resource Centres. On arrival at this Resource Centre the plaintiff noted the same motor car parked nearby. On concluding her

business at the Resource Centre the plaintiff carried out about seven home visits as part of her duties as Home-School Liaison

coordinator. This car continued to follow her even when the house being visited by the plaintiff was situated in a cul-de-sac.

41. The plaintiff noted that one of the men in this car was wearing a yellow coloured helmet of a type worn by builders. I accept the

plaintiff’s evidence that she felt hunted, threatened and terrified. She made another mobile telephone call to her brother. Acting on

his instructions she noted the registration number of the car that was following her and telephoned the emergency number and

explained the situation to An Garda Síochána. Subsequent Garda intervention ascertained that the plaintiff was being followed a

private investigator personally employed by Dr. C. without the knowledge or approval of the Rev. Chairman or of the Board of

Management of B.C.C..

42. Despite being fully aware of the plaintiff’s long and totally uncharacteristic absences from work, in 2005, 2006 and 2007, medically

certified on each occasion as being due to work related stress, which he knew, or would have known had he chosen to consider the

matter, rendered the plaintiff very vulnerable to some form of mental illness such as nervous breakdown, Dr. C. arranged for this single

lady to be stalked by a private investigator. I find that it was reasonably foreseeable by him, that if the plaintiff for whatever reason,

accident, her own hyper vigilance or the ineptitude of the investigator, became aware of being pursued by an unknown male the

effect upon her was likely to be so traumatic as to precipitate her, vulnerable as she was, into mental illness. It was not necessary

that he should have been able to foresee the actual injury ultimately suffered by the plaintiff. For Dr. C. to have so acted, whether

deliberately or with reckless indifference even though he was or ought to have been aware that mental harm to the plaintiff might

result from his actions, amounted in my judgment to malicious targeting and harassment of the plaintiff. I find it significant that Dr. C.

did not seek prior sanction from the Board of Management of B.C. C. for this extraordinary course of action. Even if he believed that

members of the Board whom he considered to be well disposed towards the plaintiff might warn her of his intentions, he did not

consult the Rev. Chairman of the Board as he had in the case of other difficulties with the plaintiff since the 28th March, 2007.

43. It is well established in this jurisdiction, both at common law and now by s. 15 of the Employment Equality Act 1998, that even if

the Board of Management of B.C.C. did not know or could not reasonably have known (which was not the situation in the present

case), that the plaintiff was being bullied and harassed by Dr. C. in the course of her work, it is still vicariously liable for the wrongful

acts of Dr. C. once those acts were committed by him within the scope of his employment. If find that the Board of Management of

B.C.C. did not authorise any of the acts of Dr. C. which I have held amounted to bullying or harassment of the plaintiff. The Board of

Management of B.C.C. was not aware that Dr. C. had engaged the services of a private investigator to carry out covert surveillance

of the plaintiff during the course of her work which I have found amounted to harassment of the plaintiff. However, all these acts

took place during the official school day and, in my judgment were related to his work and were a wrongful way of performing the task

which Dr. C. as principal of B.C.C. was authorised to perform, that is, to manage the business of the college. This involved ensuring

that teachers were present and were carrying out their duties properly and responsibly. The Board of Management of B.C.C. decided

at its meeting on the 6th March, 2008, having queried Dr. C. at length about the matter, that he had acted within the scope of his

employment in engaging the services of the private investigator and in paying for those services out of a college fund administered by

Dr. C. Therefore, the vicarious liability of the Board of Management of B.C.C. for the acts of Dr. C. is not an issue in this case. What

are involved are issues of foreseeability, causation and damage.

44. On the 22nd December, 2006, Dr. McMahon who had been the plaintiff’s General Medical Practitioner since 1980 concluded that

the plaintiff was then suffering from anxiety disorder: prior to this his diagnosis had always been one of stress due to being bullied at

work. On the 1st September, 2006, he had advised the plaintiff to take time off from work to recover from this stress which he

attributed to being bullied and harassed at work by Dr. C.. On the 27th March, 2007, Dr. McMahon was satisfied that the plaintiff was

sufficiently recovered to return to work and he noted that she was very keen to do so. The plaintiff did return to work on the 28th

March, 2007, and, despite the events described previously in this judgment, it was not until the 1st April, 2008, that she again felt a

need to consult Dr. McMahon.

45. On this occasion the plaintiff complained of being very anxious, unable to sleep, distressed and worried. Her complaint was that

she had been followed on her house visits as Home-School Liaison Coordinator by a private investigator engaged by Dr. C.. She felt

very despondent that the Board of Management of B.C.C. would do nothing. On this occasion, Dr. McMahon formed the opinion that

the plaintiff was bordering on depression. However, he did not prescribe anti-depressants or anti-anxiety medication. He told the

court that this was his normal practice as he considered that drug therapy should always be the option of last resort because of the

danger of a patient becoming drug dependent.

46. The plaintiff presented again on the 28th August, 2008, following the death of her father, to whom she was very close. On that

occasion she told Dr. McMahon that she was, “still fighting for her work conditions and trying to reinstate her service to pupils and

parents”. On the 2nd October, 2008, the plaintiff next visited Dr. McMahon. He found her depressed. She asked to be referred to Dr.

Abbie Lane, a consultant psychiatrist. Dr. McMahon agreed. He told the court that since she had first become his patient in 1980 and

despite a difficult marriage and a very traumatic separation, the plaintiff had never previously needed such a referral. Department of

Education sick leave records show that Dr. McMahon issued medical certificates to the plaintiff on the following dates: 9th

September, 2008, 10th September, 2008, 2nd October, 2008, 20th October, 2008, 27th October, 2008, 17th November, 2008, 24th

November, 2008, 10th December, 2008, 22nd December, 2008, 9th January 2009, 19th January, 2009, 26th January, 2009, and finally

on the 9th February, 2009.

47. In cross examination Dr. McMahon accepted that he had never diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering from clinical depression or from

any form of psychological or psychiatric illness. He considered that the plaintiff was suffering from severe stress and anxiety which he

considered to be a psychological crisis but not an illness. He considered that the plaintiff should see a consultant psychologist, but

she asked to be referred to Dr. Lane. She was seen by Dr. Lane on the 10th November, 2008. Dr. McMahon told the court that he had

last seen the plaintiff on the 4th December, 2008. On that occasion she had told him that she had decided that resuming work was

out of the question. He said that he was not at all in favour of this. He hoped that the plaintiff would resume her work as a teacher

which she obviously enjoyed and he tried to persuade her to this effect. He considered that it was too early for her to retire and that

it was not in the best interests of her own psychological welfare to retire. He felt that on this occasion she could overcome her

problems just as she had done in relation to the very traumatic separation in 1999/2000.

48. Dr. Lane, a consultant psychiatrist, told the court that she saw the plaintiff for the first time on the 10th November, 2008, on

referral from Dr. McMahon. On presentation, the plaintiff appeared stressed and pale and wept frequently during the consultation. The

plaintiff complained of down mood present all day every day for more than two weeks, lack of interest in or enjoyment of everyday

things, disturbed sleep, loss of appetite, constant fatigue, lack of motivation and, poor concentration. Dr. Lane concluded that the

plaintiff was suffering from severe clinical depression with an overlay to post traumatic stress disorder. Because of the plaintiff’s

description of feeling hopeless and worthless, Dr. Lane considered that there was a possible risk of self-harm and endeavoured,

unsuccessfully, to persuade the plaintiff to undergo a period of in-patient treatment. She therefore prescribed anti-depressant and

anti-anxiety medication, - Lustral, - at the maximum permitted dosage.

49. Dr. Lane reviewed the patient at two monthly intervals thereafter. By March 2009, she noted that the plaintiff’s mood had

improved somewhat, but that she was still anxious, depressed and tearful. Dr. Lane considered that the plaintiff was just about able

to cope with the normal chores of day to day living and was not fit to return to work. Throughout 2009, Dr. Lane provided the plaintiff

with cognitive behaviour therapy. By June 2010, Dr. Lane was satisfied that the plaintiff was considerably recovered: her mood was

up, she had recovered motivation and interest in things, her enjoyment of life had returned and she felt more hopeful. However, she

remained anxious at times and was subject to occasional flashbacks and nightmares of persons following her. Dr. Lane concluded that

the plaintiff was no longer depressed and was able to go out on her own without being overanxious or over vigilant. At this time Dr.

Lane considered that the plaintiff was physically and mentally able to return to work at B.C.C. but she remained, very concerned that

the plaintiff might become re-traumatised by a classroom incident, a difficulty with a parent or, continuing friction with the college

administration or with colleagues on the teaching staff.

50. Dr. Lane produced in evidence the referral letter dated the 3rd October, 2008, sent to her by Dr. McMahon. This letter referred to

bullying and harassment at work and to the fact that the plaintiff’s father had died recently. Dr. McMahon also referred to the fact

that on the previous day he had detected what he considered to be signs of a depressive illness. It was Dr. Lane’s expert opinion,

which I accept, that given the plaintiff’s history, the death of her father was not the cause her symptoms, though it probably added

to her low mood. The fact that these symptoms had continued even though the plaintiff was away from the work environment since

the 1st October, 2008, was an indication to Dr. Lane of the severity of the plaintiff’s depressive illness. I am satisfied that Dr. Lane

was not shaken in her opinion that there was no other reasonable or rational explanation for the plaintiff’s illness in her history, other

than the alleged bullying and harassment. Dr. Lane told the court that the plaintiff had informed her that on the 20th October, 2007,

the Investigating Officer under the Code of Procedure had found that she had not been harassed or bullied at work in relation to the

matters then at issue. The plaintiff told Dr. Lane that she did not accept this conclusion and that the bullying and harassment by Dr.

C. had continued despite the investigation. Dr. Lane conceded that the investigation and its outcome would have had a traumatic

effect on the plaintiff. However, she stated that she was quite satisfied by reference to the entire history that this was not what had

caused the plaintiff’s illness: in her opinion that was the workplace situation. Dr. Lane accepted that prior to 1st April, 2008, there

had been no diagnosis of depression in the plaintiff’s case. She told the court that constant stress and anxiety can lead to depression

and that when she saw the plaintiff for the first time on the 10th November, 2008, she had no doubt whatever but that the plaintiff

was then suffering from a psychiatric illness, - serious depression.

51. Dr. Lane told the court that in order to form a diagnosis that the plaintiff was suffering from severe depressive illness on the 10th

November, 2008, she had to be satisfied that her symptoms had commenced no later than two weeks prior to the date of the

consultation. However, given the severity of the plaintiff’s illness on that date she was satisfied that the plaintiff must have been

suffering from depression for a very considerable time before that, probably for as long as two years. I find it very significant that on

the 1st April, 2008, - almost five moths before her father died on the 25th August, 2008, - the plaintiff was diagnosed by Dr.

McMahon as “bordering on depression this time”. Dr. Lane stated that she was aware that the plaintiff had applied to the Department

of Education in 2009, for leave to retire on the basis of, “permanent ill health”. Dr. Lane stated that she was not aware that Dr.

McMahon had strongly urged the plaintiff not to retire. Dr. Lane told the court that she did not have any role whatever in the

plaintiff’s decision to retire.

52. Dr. Lane told the court that she was satisfied that the plaintiff was also suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. She said

that the causative trauma was the threat to the plaintiff’s career and therefore her security, the feeling of helplessness in the face of

the continuous bullying and harassment and, the profound threat to her core values. Dr. Lane considered that the accumulation of

these matters would be sufficiently traumatic to induce post traumatic stress disorder in the plaintiff. In the plaintiff’s case she felt

that all the classic symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder had become evident within the expected period: the plaintiff had

intrusive memories of the events, nightmares and flashbacks, she was hyper aroused and tense which manifested itself especially in

the form of hyper vigilance and hyper alertness, she avoided returning to the College, going out on her own, or anything which

reminded her of the trigger events. However, Dr. Lane did not give evidence that the plaintiff had suffered a psychiatric injury

because of an immediate fear for her own safety consequent on being followed by the two men. Dr. Lane admitted that she did not

seek copies of Dr. McMahon’s’ clinical notes. I accept her explanation that she would not do so unless the plaintiff had a history of

mental problems in the past. Dr. McMahon told the court without any reservation or equivocation that the plaintiff, in his medical

opinion had not suffered from any psychiatric injury while she was under his care. No medical data studies or literature was advanced

in support of the contention that a feeling of helplessness in the face of a perceived threat, not to one’s personal safety but to one’s

career and not from a single traumatic event but from an accumulation of events over a period of nineteen months would be a

sufficient trauma to give rise to post traumatic stress disorder.

53. It is significant that in the work, “Understanding Mental Health (Blackhall Publishing: 2006), which she produced in evidence by

her, Dr. Lane at chap. 2, p. 27 states in respect of “post traumatic stress”, that:-

“This is a common condition which occurs some weeks after a person has been involved in or has witnessed a traumatic

event. Examples include being involved in a road traffic accident, being held at gunpoint, being involved in a fire or an

explosion. Symptoms come on between two and six weeks following the trauma . . . (etc.).”

54. In the circumstances and having regard to the decision this Court in Mullally v. Bus Éireann [1992] I.L.R.M. 722 and of the

Supreme Court in Kelly v. Hennessy [1996] 1 I.L.R.M. 312 I find that the plaintiff has not established, - the onus of proof being on

her, - on the balance of probabilities, that she suffered post traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of bullying or harassment by

Dr. C..

55. Dr. Mohan a consultant forensic psychiatrist, who gave evidence in the case for the defendant, told the court that he had a

consultation with the plaintiff on the 2nd December, 2008, and that he had also considered the following documents: the Report of

the Investigating Officer dated the 26th October, 2007, the Pleadings in the instant case, the Clinical Records of Dr. McMahon, Dr.

Lane’s Report, the Department of Education Attendance records relating to the plaintiff and, the views of Dr. C. and of his Solicitors.

He accepted that the plaintiff did not have a personality disorder. However, he considered that she demonstrated an impaired

judgment and a distorted interpretation of work place events, coupled with a tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping with

reality and, an excessive regard for her contribution to B.C.C.. Dr. Mohan agreed that he had come to this opinion principally from his

analysis of the report by the Investigating Officer.

56. Dr. Mohan accepted that stress and anxiety, such as that reported by Dr. McMahon in his clinical notes relating to the plaintiff

could be a significant causative factor in the onset of depression. However, he felt that the fact that the plaintiff had continued to

work after the incident involving the private investigator in early February 2008, until the 1st October, 2008, with only very few days

absent was, more consistent with stress than with clinical depression. Dr. Mohan told the court that if the plaintiff was in fact

suffering from severe depressive illness on the 10th November, 20008, as was the opinion of Dr. Lane, he considered that evidence of

the onset of that illness would have to be sought at least six months prior to that date, but not as far back as two years. He noted

that the plaintiff had received no medical treatment for depression prior to the 10th November, 2008. Dr. Mohan considered that the

very considerable emotional stress and feeling of victimisation reflected in Dr. McMahon’s clinical records, compounded by feelings of

disappointment and anger on the 26th October, 2007, following receipt of the Investigating Officer’s report, followed by the death of

her father, to whom she was very close, on the 25th August, 2008, could be capable of causing the plaintiff to become depressed.

However, he considered that there was no evidence on the medical record of severe and persistent symptoms, at any rate prior to

the 1st April, 2008. It was his opinion that the plaintiff was suffering from anxiety and stress as a normal response to the pressures

and problems in the work place.

57. I find on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff has discharged the onus on her of establishing that she did suffer a

psychiatric illness, in the form of clinical depression and, that a direct causative connection existed between that injury and the

continuous bullying and harassment of her by Dr. C. from the 28th March, 2007, onwards. The evidence established that Dr. McMahon

considered that the plaintiff was fit to return to work on the 28th March 2007, and he furnished a medical certificate to that effect. I

accept his evidence that the plaintiff was herself most anxious to return to work at that time. On the 1st April, 2008, Dr. McMahon

found the plaintiff to be, “bordering on depression”. This was almost five months before her father died. Undoubtedly she continued to

work, but it is not at all unusual for persons suffering from depression to continue to work and from what I observed of this plaintiff, I

am satisfied that this would be entirely in keeping with her character. I am prepared to infer that the distress which the plaintiff

experienced following the death of her father as noted by Dr. McMahon in his clinical notes for the 25th August, 2008, may have

temporarily lowered her mood further, if it was already low. However, I am satisfied from her personal and medical history and from

the evidence of Dr. McMahon based upon his unique insight into her character and psyche, as her general medical practitioner for

over 30 years, that this bereavement did not cause or materially contribute to the onset of her depression which was noted for the

first time by Dr. McMahon a few weeks later on the 2nd October, 2008.

58. Dr. Lane treated the plaintiff for depressive illness from the 10th November, 2008, to June 2010, by which time she considered the

plaintiff was fit to return to work. Dr. McMahon agreed and Dr. Mohan accepted that the onset of depressive illness would be

consistent with the sort of work place problems which the plaintiff claimed she was experiencing at the hands of Dr. C.. There was no

evidence at all to suggest that the plaintiff had a pre disposition to depression even if an older sibling suffered from that illness. The

evidence of Dr. McMahon, in my judgment, entirely disposes of that suggestion. I find that Dr. Lane is correct in her conclusion that

apart from the constant stress and anxiety suffered by the plaintiff between the 28th March, 2007 and the 7th February, 2008,

culminating in the traumatic events of the 7th February, 2008, there is nothing in the plaintiff’s life to otherwise account for the

clinical depression suffered her. It was not suggested during the course of the action that the plaintiff was feigning illness or

exaggerating her symptoms.

59. Whatever would have been the position in 2005 or 2006, I am satisfied, and I so find, that on the 28th March, 2007, Dr. C. knew

or ought reasonably to have foreseen that any bullying or harassment of the plaintiff carried a “materially substantial risk” of the

plaintiff suffering a mental injury as a result and could by the exercise by the reasonable care have avoided that result. Dr. C. and the

Board of Management of B.C.C. knew that the plaintiff had been absent from work for a number of weeks in November and December

2005, certified by Dr. McMahon as suffering from work related stress. They knew that between the 31st August, 2006 and the 27th

March, 2007, the plaintiff had been certified by Dr. McMahon as unfit for work due to work related stress. In my judgment this history

of occupational stress put Dr. C. on notice that the plaintiff was vulnerable to some form of mental injury if she was subjected to

further stress arising from such as would inevitably follow from bullying or harassment at work. Dr. C., despite the poor start on the

28th March, 2007, could have apologised to the plaintiff for his outburst, welcomed her back and sought to effect a reconciliation

between them or if that was not possible, to at least try to work out a modus viviendi with her. If it proved impossible to re-establish

even a professional working relationship with the plaintiff, then Dr. C. should have immediately called on the Board of Management of

B.C.C. to intervene and to insist that the plaintiff cooperated fully with him in carrying out her duties as Home-School Liaison

Coordinator. This is something which a reasonable and prudent manager would have done in the circumstances. Dr. C. ought

reasonably to have known in commissioning the surveillance, that if the plaintiff became aware that she was being followed about in

public by two unknown men and became frightened as a result, there was a clear and substantial risk that she would suffer a nervous

breakdown, post traumatic stress disorder, depression, illusional disorder or some other form of mental illness.

60. Apart from being vicariously liable for the actions of Dr. C. the Board of Management of B.C.C. owed the plaintiff a direct duty of

care, as her employer, both at common law band by virtue of the provisions of the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, to

take reasonable care to prevent her suffering mental injury in the workplace as a result of being harassed or bullied by other

employees if they knew or ought to have known that such was occurring. (Quigley v. Complex Tooling and Moulding Limited [2009]

I.R. 349). I am satisfied that in the post 28th March, 2007, period the Board of Management of B.C.C. ought to have known, from

correspondence from the plaintiff’s solicitors, correspondence from the parents of pupils in the college and, from the personal

knowledge of several members of the Board involved in the day to day business of the college that the plaintiff was continuing to

claim that she was being victimised, bullied and harassed by Dr. C.. For the same reasons to which I have adverted in the case of Dr.

C., the Board of Management ought reasonably to have foreseen that there was a materially serious risk that the plaintiff would suffer

some form of mental illness if the situation between her and Dr. C. was permitted to continue.

61. Despite this, the Board of Management of B.C.C. took no reasonable or proper steps as the plaintiff’s employer to address the

situation. Following receipt of the letter dated the 15th December, 2007, from Dr. C. the Board of Management following its meeting

on the 10th January, 2008, did invite Dr. C. and the plaintiff to meet the Board on the 17th January, 2008, and set out their

respective grievances. I am prepared to accept the evidence of the Rev. former Chairman and of the current Chairperson of the Board

of Management that the Board was not aware of the full extent of the problems existing and that neither the teacher’s

representatives nor the Union representatives on the Board had formally raised the matter before the Board. Nonetheless, between

April 2007 and the 10th October, 2008, the Board was aware that the plaintiff and Dr. C. were not communicating with each other,

that confrontations were taking place between them and that this was essentially the same sort of situation which had formed the

basis for the plaintiff’s complaint of bullying and harassment by Dr. C. on the 4th October, 2006. However, was apart from the single

offer to meet the parties on the 17th January, 2008, the Board of Management took no positive action whatsoever to deal with the

situation which the Deputy Principal in evidence described as “catastrophic, totally strange, unusual and unreal”. I find that this

failure of the Board of Management to act as a reasonably careful and prudent employer would have acted permitted the continuous

bullying and harassment of the plaintiff by Dr. C. to continue to the point where the plaintiff began to suffer clinical depression. Dr. C.

told the court that he was driven by desperation to engage the services of the private investigator because of the failure to the

Board of Management and the Department of Education to take any action in the matter. The evidence of the Rev. former Chairman

of the Board of Management and the evidence of the current Chairperson of the Board suggests that the reason why the Board did

not act prior to the 10th October, 2008, was that the procedures under the Code of Procedure were slow and complex and, “the

lawyers had turned the whole affair into a procedural wrangle and a legal morass”. Certainly the correspondence admitted or proved in

evidence in the course of the trial might afford a reasonable basis for that belief. However, this does not provide a reasonable or

proper ground for taking no action at all for ten months. In my judgment the Board of Management of B.C.C. was in breach also of the

direct duty of care, which, as her employer, it owed the plaintiff.

62. In my judgment the evidence establishes that the plaintiff was subjected to deliberate and continuous bullying and harassment by

Dr. C. as a direct consequence of which she suffered mental injury in the form of clinical depression, a result which was reasonably

foreseeable. I am satisfied that from some short time after the 7th February, 2008, until June 2010, the plaintiff suffered a serious

depressive illness. She has now recovered from this, but I accept Dr. Lane’s evidence that she remains at present anxious at times, is

subject to occasional flashbacks and nightmares of persons following her and is vulnerable to becoming re-traumatised by any form of

significant confrontation. However, neither Dr. Lane nor Dr. McMahon advised the plaintiff not to return to work or to take early

retirement from teaching. On the contrary, Dr. McMahon strongly advised her against such a course. There was no evidence which

would lead me to conclude that it would be irrational and unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to continue to serve as Home-School

Liaison Coordinator or in some other teaching capacity in B.C.C.. She did so between the 7th February, 2008 and the 1st October,

2008 and with very few days absent from work. There is nothing I can see on the facts in this case which would in any way inhibit a

simple and just resolution of the difficulties which have arisen between Dr. C. and the plaintiff which would enable them to continue to

work efficiently together as professional colleagues, even if not as friends. The evidence in this case clearly established that it is

quite usual for some teachers in large schools and colleges not to be on speaking terms with other teachers in the same school or

college.

63. The court has already held that the defendants were negligent in causing or permitting the plaintiff to be harried, watched and

beset in the course of her employment with the Board of Management of B.C.C.. I find that the same acts or omissions may form a

basis for an action for breach of an implied term of contract. In Matthews v. Kuwait Bechtel Corporation [1959] 2 Q.B. 57, Sellers L.J.

delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal held at p. 66 as follows:-

“It is perhaps sufficient if I say that, in my view, this question is a somewhat artificial one. The existence of the duty

arising out of the relationship between employer and employed was recognised by the law without the institution of an

analytical inquiry whether the duty was in essence contractual or tortious. What mattered was that the duty was there.

A duty may exist by contract, express or implied. Since, in any event, the duty in question is one which exists by

imputation or implication of law and not by virtue of any express negotiation between the parties, I should be inclined to

say that there is no real distinction between the two possible sources of obligation. But it is certainly, I think, as much

contractual as tortious. Since in modern times the relationship between master and servant, between employer and

employed, is inherently one of contract, it seems to me entirely correct to attribute the duties which arise from that

relationship to implied contract. It is a familiar position in our law that the same wrongful act may be made the subject of

an action either in contract or in tort at the election of the claimant, and, although the course chosen may produce

certain incidental consequences which would not have followed had the other course been adopted, it is a mistake to

regard the two kinds of liability as themselves necessarily exclusive of each other.”

64. In the instant case I think it will be found that the plaintiff elected to present her case in tort. In these circumstances I feel that

it can only lead to confusion to deal further with implied contractual terms and remedies for breach of contract.

65. In my opinion the actions of Dr. C. in this case do not amount to what Griffin J. described in Conway v. I.N.T.O. [1991] 2 I.R. 305

at 323 as, “wilful and conscious wrongdoing in contumelious disregard of another’s rights”. In such circumstances the court is not

disposed to awarding exemplary, otherwise punitive damages to the plaintiff. In the same case Finlay C.J. defined “aggravated

damages” as compensatory damages increased by reason of:-

“(a) The manner in which the wrong was committed involving such elements as oppressiveness, arrogance or outrage or,

(b) Conduct of the wrongdoer after the commission of the wrong: refusal to apologise or ameliorate the harm done, or

threatening to repeat the wrong, or

(c) The conduct of the wrongdoer or his representatives in defending the claim up to and including the trial of the

action.”

66. In my judgment the behaviour of Dr. C., towards the plaintiff in the present case was oppressive and arrogant and, I find caused

her additional hurt and insult. I therefore consider that this is an appropriate for the court to mark its abhorrence of such conduct by

awarding aggravated damages to the plaintiff. The court will therefore award damages to the plaintiff for the personal injuries which

she has suffered to the date of this judgment in the sum of €60,000 of which the sum of €5,000 represents the increased amount of

the compensatory damages. The court will award the plaintiff additional damages in the sum of €15,000 in respect of personal injuries

which she may suffer in the future. €13,625 agreed specials.

Other Cases Referred to in Arguments

Educational Company of Ireland Ltd & Anor. v. Fitzpatrick & Others [1961] I.R. 345.

Kennedy & Others v. Ireland and the Attorney General [1987] I.R. 587.

Allen (Claimant) v. Dunnes Stores Ltd. (Jan. 1995) [1996] Employment Law Reports 203.

The Health Board v. B.C. & The labour Court (Jan. 1994) Employment Law Reports.

Maher v. Jabil Global Services Ltd. [2005] I.E.H.C. 1310.

McGrath v. Trintech Technologies Ltd. [2005] 4 I.R. 382.

O’Keeffe v. Hickey & Others [2009] 1 I.L.R.M. 490.