Award to Employee for Personal Injuries Suffered as a result of Bullying and Harassment overturned by the Court of Appeal

A Special Needs Assistant was awarded a record sum of €255,276 for personal injuries due to bullying and harassment by the Principal of St. Anne’s National School by the High Court. This decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal [2015 IECA287].

The Special Needs Assistant, Ms. Ruffley had worked in the school for a number of years. She claimed she was being bullied by the Principal due to the way in which a disciplinary process was carried out, and resulting in a severe disciplinary sanction. An incident had occurred when Ms. Ruffley was looking after a special needs child and was accused of locking the sensory room they were in. This was against the rules of the school and is a breach of the child protection policy. However, Ms. Ruffley provided evidence this was a common practice by some of the Special Needs Assistants in the school as some of the pupils had a tendency to run out of the room. There was then an incident where Ms. Ruffley reported a pupil could perform a certain task which was found to be incorrect. The school accused the Special Needs Assistant of “falsifying” this information. No proper investigation was conducted by the Board of Management of the school into the complaints and ultimately the Board of Management imposed a severe disciplinary sanction of a final written warning for 18 months on Ms Ruffley.

The Court of Appeal accepted that the investigation and disciplinary process was botched by the school.

The Court of Appeal applied the definition of workplace bullying in the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice) order 2002 SI 17/2002 to the claim:

“Workplace bullying is repeated inappropriate behaviour, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/ or in the course of employment, which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual’s right to dignity at work. An isolated incident of the behaviour described in this definition may be an affront to dignity at work but, as a once off incident, it is not considered to be bullying”.

Using the definition of workplace bullying, the Court of Appeal found the personal injury of the Special Needs Assistant was caused by her workplace treatment but the incidents involved of a botched investigation and disciplinary process by the school did not amount to an affront to the dignity of Ms. Ruffley. This ruling gives reassurance to employers that they are entitled to pursue investigations and disciplinary processes against employees as long as this does not amount to an affront to the employees Dignity at Work and follows other Court rulings. There are other options for employees in this situation. Advice should be taken at an early stage regarding any investigation and disciplinary process involving an employee in particular if there is serious misconduct. This is to ensure that a proper investigation, disciplinary process and fair procedures are carried out. The sanction given must be reasonable and not excessive.


If you have any comments on the above or would like any further information please contact Davnet O’Driscoll at Davnet@amoryssolicitors.com tel 01-213 59 40


Record Award for Mother who Suffered Nervous Shock

The High Court made a record award to a mother whose only son was killed in a road traffic accident. In Purcell –v- Long [2015] IEHC385 €225,000 was awarded as general damages for pain and suffering to date and into the future which is a substantial increase in compensation previously awarded by the Courts for nervous shock/psychiatric injury.


The mother was informed of the death of her son and said she never recovered from the shock. She suffered an acute stress reaction, became profoundly depressed and suicidal as a result and never recovered from this. The mother had previously suffered moderate depression and had periods of time on medication. The Defendant’s doctor said the mother had a recurring depressive disorder and she was a vulnerable person at the time of the accident. He was also of the view that the mother would have remained prone to depressive episodes regardless of the loss of her son.
The decision

Mr. Justice Barr found that the mother suffered severe nervous shock as a result of the death of her son, and severe depression as a result. Her previous psychiatric history had rendered her vulnerable to further injury when she received the distressing news of the death of her only son. He accepted that the mother will require heavy medication, will not be fit for employment and will suffer from depression into the future. She was awarded damages of €125,000 to date, and €100,000 damages for the future.

As the mother was a vulnerable person at the time of the injury, the Defendant is responsible for the extent of the injury inflicted on her under the “eggshell skull rule” in law.

This is a summary of a recent legal development and comprehensive legal advice should be obtained if an injury has occurred. If you have a personal injury or medical negligence claim and have any question, please contact Davnet@amoryssolicitors.com