UCC man fails in court challenge

The head of UCC's economics department, Prof Connell M

The head of UCC's economics department, Prof Connell M. Fanning, was yesterday refused a High Court order restraining the college from using a mediation process aimed at resolving a dispute arising out of problems within his department.

Miss Justice Carroll said she was satisfied Prof Fanning had not established there was a fair issue to be tried. The court would not issue an order restraining mediation when Prof Fanning could refuse to take part in such mediation and, if he did so, UCC would have to find another solution.

The balance of convenience lay in letting UCC use the mediation procedure to try to resolve the dispute, the judge said.

The president of UCC, Dr Gerard Wrixon, initiated the mediation last March to try to avoid a lengthy High Court action by three lecturers in the Department of Economics against Prof Fanning and UCC. Mr Anthony Barlow, Mr Martin Kenneally and Mr Michael O Suilleabhain allege loss and damage as a result of the actions of Prof Fanning and the university.

READ MORE

In a petition presented to the UCC governing body on March 9th signed by 20 staff members, concern was expressed that the "certain loser" would be UCC, in both reputational and financial terms, if the action went ahead.

They urged the president and governing body to appoint a mediator to seek an early, discreet and reasonable resolution of the issues.

Prof Fanning says that before Dr Wrixon took up office a joint defence strategy covering the main proceedings was agreed between himself and UCC, and he claims UCC is bound to honour that. A condition of the strategy was that there could be no settlement with the lecturers without the consent of himself and UCC.

While he would welcome mediation if it was conducted appropriately, the current process was taking place without his consent and was therefore in breach of the joint defence agreement.

He had participated in two mediation sessions despite concerns that the process did not follow normal procedures. He had been informed the mediator intended to conclude proceedings on May 25th.

In an affidavit, Dr Wrixon said the mediation process was intended to seek an agreed resolution of all the matters at issue between the various parties in the main action. It did not constitute a breach of any agreement between Prof Fanning and UCC.

It was not UCC's understanding that there was any binding agreement with Prof Fanning whereby UCC was committed for ever to fund the defence of the main action, irrespective of how the case developed.