The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal challenging the decision to revert a Department of Justice employee to her previous grade following an unsuccessful probationary period, finding that the secretary general had sufficient evidence to support her decision and was not bound by a contrary recommendation from the Civil Service Appeals Board (CSAB).
Delivering judgment, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland held that the secretary general was entitled to consider all the information before her, including disputed accounts of events, when determining whether the employee had satisfied the conditions of probation.
The appellant commenced employment with the Department of Justice as a legal researcher in July 2021 and was promoted to senior legal researcher in June 2023. Her probation was governed by the 2019 Guidelines on the Management of Probation in the Civil Service, which provided for three formal performance reviews.
Although the appellant received a satisfactory rating at her first review in September 2023, her subsequent reviews in December 2023 and March 2024 resulted in unsatisfactory ratings. Her line manager recommended that she be reverted to her previous grade.
The appellant appealed to the CSAB, which recommended that she be confirmed in her promoted position, having concluded that her work was of a high standard and within acceptable limits. However, in June 2024, the secretary general decided to revert the appellant to the grade of legal researcher pursuant to section 7(b) of the Civil Service Regulation Act 1956.
Following the High Court's refusal to quash that decision, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the secretary general had relied on disputed allegations without an adequate evidential foundation and had acted unreasonably in departing from the CSAB's recommendation.
Ms Justice Hyland rejected the argument that the secretary general was required to resolve every factual dispute before exercising her statutory powers. The Court found that sufficient material existed to support a conclusion that the appellant had failed to meet the conditions of probation, and that the evaluation of that material was a matter for the secretary general.
The Court emphasised that probationary assessments differ from disciplinary proceedings, where contested allegations will generally require resolution. The existence of conflicting accounts did not prevent the secretary general from assessing the available evidence, particularly where she was aware of those conflicts through the appeal materials.
Addressing the CSAB recommendation, the Court confirmed that the appeals procedure was non-statutory and that its recommendations were expressly non-binding under the applicable Guidelines. The secretary general therefore retained authority to reach a different conclusion under the 1956 Act.
The Court was also satisfied that adequate reasons had been provided for departing from the recommendation. In particular, the secretary general had identified concerns regarding the CSAB's failure to address conduct-related issues, the incomplete nature of its report and certain inaccuracies.
Ms Justice Hyland observed that the appellant understood precisely why the secretary general had reached her decision, notwithstanding her disagreement with the outcome.
The Court declined to consider additional fair procedures arguments concerning the appellant's opportunity to be heard, as those matters had not been pleaded in the judicial review proceedings or determined by the High Court.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision and rejected the appellant's challenge to her reversion to her previous grade.