Counsel for the Dáil tells Angela Kerins case of 'very significant' issue around 'availability' of damages
Counsel for the Dáil has told the High Court there is a "very important" issue about whether or not damages are available to former Rehab CEO Angela Kerins as a result of a finding she was treated unlawfully by the Dáil Public Accounts Committee.
Ms Kerins is seeking substantial damages, including for loss of her annual salary, bonuses and company car with Rehab from the time of her resignation after the PAC hearings in 2014 to retirement age. She is also expected to claim over the impact of her resignation on her pension.
Brian Kennedy SC, for the Dáil said this was not about an assessment of damages and there was rather a "very significant" and "very important" issue concerning the "availability" of damages to Ms Kerins.
He made the remark when an application to re-enter Ms Kerins' proceedings with a view to pursuing damages was before the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Peter Kelly, this afternoon.
The case has been mentioned twice earlier this morning before the judge who adjourned it to January on consent for reasons including he had not been provided by Ms Kerins' side in advance with the necessary legal papers.
Due to confusion over listings and the need to address procedures, it was mentioned again later this afternoon.
Mr Kennedy told the judge there were two matters to be addressed.
The first was Ms Kerins' application to re-enter her proceedings to embark on module two of those and the sides had agreed that could be adjourned to January 20, he said.
The second matter concerned discovery of documents.
Ms Kerins had brought an application for discovery of documents which the Court of Appeal previously decided was premature pending module one of her case.
Subject to her response to an application by the Dáil respondents for voluntary discovery of documents by her, the Dáil may also seek discovery.
Mr Justice Kelly said he would deal on January 20 with the application to re-enter the case after which the discovery issues would be addressed.
Ms Kerins’ action was initiated in 2014 and the High Court decided in 2015 it should proceed via two modules.
The first concerned whether the courts had jurisdiction to interfere with hearings before Oireachtas Committees. Other issues, including any entitlement to damages, were parked pending the outcome of that.
In January 2017, a three-judge High Court was strongly critical of the PAC’s treatment of Ms Kerins but concluded, because of the constitutional separation of powers, the courts could not intervene.
Ms Kerins appealed to the Supreme Court which, in a landmark judgment, found the PAC acted unlawfully in its treatment of her in that it acted outside its terms of reference and of its invitation to her to appear before it.
The seven-judge court granted a declaration against the Dáil to that effect last May.
It directed any further dispute between the sides, including about any entitlement to damages, should be decided, in the first instance, by the High Court.
It could not be assumed there was an "entitlement" to damages and any such claim raised novel issues of law, the Supreme Court said.
The second leg of Ms Kerins' case involves claims for misfeasance in public office, breach of constitutional rights and damages arising from her treatment by the PAC.
She claims her treatment by the PAC amounted to a “witchhunt” and lead to an attempt by her to take her own life and to other fundamental life changes, including significant financial loss.
It is understood an offer by Ms Kerins of a non-binding mediation of the second part of her case has not been taken up by the respondents.
