Cork woman wins bid to temporarily restrain HSE from terminating her contract
At the High Court, Lorna Lynch SC, successfully applied for an interim injunction restraining the HSE from treating her client 'as anything otherwise than an employee of the HSE'.
An E-Health director at the HSE has secured a High Court order that temporarily restrains the health body from what she claims is the unlawful termination of her contract due to occur on Thursday.
At the High Court today, Lorna Lynch SC, successfully applied for an interim injunction restraining the HSE from treating her client, Louise Callanan, "as anything otherwise than an employee of the HSE", until any further order the court made.
Ms Callanan of Rochestown, Cork, is employed as a E-Health Director, Assistant National Director with the HSE and was hired for the 'South/Southwest Hospital Group' in March 2022. She is seeking to block the termination of her employment due tomorrow, Thursday, April 3, on the basis that she is a permanent employee.
In her court papers, Ms Callanan said she applied to the ‘South/Southwest Hospital Group’ role after viewing an advertisement in October 2021, which referenced the establishment of the HSE Southwest Health Region, and that the role was described as "full-time" and would assist in the management and delivery of public health and social care services in the Cork and Kerry region.
Ms Callanan successfully interviewed for the role and claims she was told during the interview that she was applying for a "permanent" role that the role would transition into the new 'HSE Southwest' structure, which was launched last month.
The plaintiff submits that she received a letter of offer on March 30, 2022, which identified the position as "permanent" but there had been a reference in the cover letter to a "specified-purpose contract" which was to expire on April 3, 2025.
Ms Lynch told Mr Justice Brian Cregan that her client claims she was notified last month by letter that her employment was only a fixed-term contract for a "specified purpose" expiring on April 3, despite being assured by her CEO and Human Resources department numerous times that she was a whole-time permanent employee.
"The purpose of my role forms part of the defendant's Digital Health Strategy, delivery of which is to continue to 2030," claims Ms Callanan in her affidavit.
Ms Lynch said her client "by way of context" claims that she had been penalised because she made a Protected Disclosure in 2023 over a contract awarded to a health information management company in that there was a failure to ensure full data protection assessments were carried out.
In her papers, Ms Callanan says she had "serious concerns that these failures constituted a breach" of data protection laws.
She claims that after she raised her concerns she was refused support from her line manager and that 56 of 60 scheduled meetings with her CEO were cancelled within 18 months.
Ms Callanan further claims she was subject to unfair supervision and criticism and two malicious complaints of which she was cleared and exonerated.
She claims that she was allocated the smallest budget and workforce within the regional departments of E-Health directors and that requests for time off and expenses had been "challenging or delayed".
She also says a HSE letter of March 25, 2025, was "astonishing" in that a HR chief wrote to her contending that there had been "an administrative error" in the letter of appointment, when it incorrectly used the word "permanent" to describe Ms Callanan's job.
Mr Justice Cregan granted the ex parte injunction application — where only one side is represented — and adjourned the matter to Friday.
