The High Court was informed of new developments during an intense 80-minute session on the sequence of events that resulted in the recent termination of Prof Philip Nolan, the former director-general of Science Foundation Ireland (SFI).
Nolan, in his noteworthy affidavit, stated that his primary assignment upon his January 2022 appointment was to implement considerable reform and initiate significant changes in the state agency, which has an annual budget exceeding €240 million. However, he encountered strong opposition from the senior leadership of the organisation.
From the get-go, Nolan claimed, the executive committee manifested a deep-rooted reluctance to accept changes. His subsequent selection as “CEO-Designate” of the proposed merger of SFI and the Irish Research Council into the new Research Ireland entity was seen by many as a validation of his agenda. However, it generated considerable animosity among those averse to his reformist initiatives.
Although the April 2023 announcement of Nolan’s appointment by the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, then headed by minister Simon Harris, was regularly referred to by the SFI chairman as the board’s ‘dismissal via press release,’ it invoked significant notoriety during multiple board meetings.
Five high-ranking managers, colloquially known as “the reporters,” issued protected disclosures against Nolan in December 2023. Nolan, who gained notable public recognition for his role in the National Public Health Emergency Team during the Covid-19 crisis, asserted that these individuals were part of the executive management team and had “collaborated in their effort.”
An independent inquiry, led by Tom Mallon SC, determined that Nolan was free from any corporate governance violations. The investigation did not accuse him of any improper conduct, undermining corporate governance, or practicing bullying tactics.
Despite this, his behaviour towards the concerned managers was controversially deemed “inappropriate”, particularly with regard to two senior staff members. It was communicated to the court that the investigation suggested to the Protected Disclosure Group (PDG), a subcommittee of three board members, that there could be a need for a disciplinary hearing.
In an emphatic denial from his lawyer, Padraic Lyons SC, it has been said that the claims of inappropriate behaviour from his client are refuted. The client was willing for a hearing to navigate through the issue without involving any legal procedures and was amenable to mediation. It was suggested that the allegations made by the reporters were strategically aimed to obstruct and resist change by either securing his dismissal or making the implementation of changes impossible.
Fast forward to the previous Monday night. After 9 pm, Prof Nolan received a dismissal email which had been decided in a board meeting earlier in the day. Despite being on the board, Prof Nolan was not informed of the meeting which was set to review the investigation findings.
The PDG report distinctly anticipated that any outcome should come via a procedure, as stated by the attorney. However, he expressed that the board, after having received the report, took an unrivalled and highly prejudicial approach against Prof Nolan, causing him significant damage.
Quoting the letter, Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy later proceeded to impose an ex-parte injunction to prevent SFI from dismissing Prof Nolan, treating him as if he’s been dismissed or appointing anyone else to the position.
Effectively, the board sidestepped fair procedures on the grounds of a loss of trust and a disruption in the relationship between the director-general and the SFI executive committee, a threat to its statutory duties and good governance, and the board agreed this was the correct path to follow.
SFI’s own disciplinary process, presented to the court, proposes that a hearing would take place in all misconduct cases. The judge indicated that he believed Prof Nolan presented a strong case and is likely to succeed at trial, leading the judge to prevent his dismissal until the case returns on Friday afternoon. SFI was absent during the application’s hearing but will be informed and provided with the opportunity to respond to the claims then.
Moreover, during his tenure in the public service, including a ten-year period as president of Maynooth University, Prof Nolan has never previously been the subject of workplace complaints.
Mr Lyons stated that his client’s job was terminated by SFI purely based on claims made against them. The client was not given a fair chance to voice his side of the story on critical matters, which could potentially leave his reputation permanently damaged if the circumstances were left as is.
Previously in the month, SFI made it known, when the misconduct allegations surfaced, that they had responded to the investigation seriously, emphasizing their dedication to adopting a “fair, thorough and robust process”.
A representative for Mr Harris’s successor as the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Patrick O’Donovan, chose not to comment on the current status of Prof Nolan’s position as the prospective CEO of Research Ireland.