A firefighter who earlier this year was acquitted of drugs offences has resolved his High Court action aimed at preventing his employer from continuing internal disciplinary proceedings against him.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey was informed on Tuesday that the action brought by Michael Morgan had been settled.
Last month Mr Morgan, of Cluain Muillean, Nenagh, had obtained a temporary injunction restraining Tipperary County Council from holding a disciplinary meeting over allegations against him.
No details of the settlement agreement were given in open court.
The matter was adjourned to allow for the implementation of the terms of the agreement, and will return before the court in early November.
Last February a jury at Nenagh Circuit Criminal Court acquitted Mr Morgan of charges arising from the discovery of €78,000 of cocaine, allegedly found in a lunchbox in a locker at Nenagh fire station in January 2018.
When the drugs were found, Mr Morgan was not in the fire station, his locker had been open, and a subsequent garda examination of the drugs did not find any forensic link to him.
He denied any wrongdoing and said the lunchbox had been in the locker for some time. He was suspended by the council from his job on full pay over the incident.
Mr Morgan's friend John Walsh (36), of Coille Bheithe, Nenagh, was found guilty by the jury of possession of cocaine, as well as possession of cocaine for sale or supply.
Walsh was acquitted of allegedly possessing cocaine worth €13,000 or more, contrary to section 15(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Despite his acquittal, Mr Morgan was informed by the council that it was maintaining internal disciplinary proceedings against him.
Represented by Patrick O'Reilly SC, Emma Cassidy BL and instructed by solicitor Setanta Landers, Mr Morgan claimed the disciplinary process was unfair and in breach of fair procedures.
He argued that his employer had failed to disclose in proper detail the exact nature of the breaches of discipline against him, which he said it is required to do.
A disciplinary meeting was due to take place last September.
However, when seeking an injunction to halt that meeting, Mr Morgan claimed his employer had only informed him a few days before the hearing that it intended to raise unspecified matters that arose out of the criminal trial, in the disciplinary process.
This led to concerns that matters could be put to Mr Morgan at the meeting which he would not have a proper opportunity to fully respond to.
Mr Morgan, it was argued, was entitled to know in advance exactly what he is being accused of by his employer.
Arising out of his concerns about the proposed hearing, Mr Morgan applied for and was granted a temporary injunction restraining the meeting from taking place.
