A UCC academic who is alleged to have assaulted a college employee by grabbing her round the neck and throat is to go back to the High Court in October to seek to block the university from holding a disciplinary inquiry into the alleged incident.
Prof Connell Fanning is seeking to prevent UCC authorities from investigating a complaint by Ms Joan Buckley that he assaulted her in the grounds of Áras Na Laoí on August 31st, 2001, after he expressed concerns about her driving putting his dog at risk.
Prof Fanning, who is head of the university's Department of Economics, had already gone to the High Court in July 2002 seeking a similar order blocking any such investigation but he lost the case when Mr Justice Lavan ruled against him.
Mr Justice Lavan said Prof Fanning had "not come to equity with clean hands" and he did not accept that his evidence had been given in a full and frank manner. It was not necessary to make findings on the important issues raised in the case, he said, and he dismissed the action.
Prof Fanning appealed Mr Justice Lavan's ruling to the Supreme Court, and the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, with Mr Justice Geoghegan and Mr Justice McCracken, ruled in Prof Fanning's favour in January 2003.
They returned the matter for a rehearing in the High Court, and the case is now listed for the High Court in Dublin on October 26th and is expected to take up to a week to hear before another judge of the High Court.
When the case came before the High Court in 2002, Prof Fanning argued in his pleadings that following an exchange of correspondence between his solicitors and those of Ms Buckley - then employed in the language department - the matter had been resolved amicably.
Prof Fanning - who at all times denied the allegation that he had assaulted Ms Buckley - further said that she had agreed that she would not take part in any investigation which might be conducted by University College Cork on foot of her original report.
Prof Fanning also argued that, as a statutorily appointed professor and head of department, he was not subject to the disciplinary procedures upon which UCC was relying and said the procedures were in breach of the provisions of the Universities Act, 1997.
He also argued that UCC had no power to appoint a former chairman of the Labour Court, Mr John Horgan, to investigate the matter and said the appointment was invalid because Mr Horgan had previously advised UCC in relation to disciplinary procedures.
Prof Fanning also accused the UCC authorities of putting pressure on Ms Buckley to pursue the matter as part of an ongoing attempt by the university authorities to undermine his reputation, authority and position.
Prof Fanning sought an injunction restraining UCC from holding any disciplinary inquiry into the alleged incident, suspending him from his position or interfering with his duties, as well as damages.
UCC strongly denied Prof Fanning's claims, arguing that it was entitled to hold a disciplinary inquiry and strongly rejecting Prof Fanning's assertion that Mr Horgan's appointment was invalid or that there was any conspiracy against Prof Fanning.
