A fifth-year medical student on University College Dublin’s (UCD) six-year degree programme has failed to obtain an injunction seeking to restrain a disciplinary procedure against him over allegations of violent, abusive and threatening behaviour.

The student sought to have UCD’s student disciplinary procedure against him withdrawn, claiming there was prejudice towards him. He alleged the procedure was only invoked after he told a School of Medicine faculty member he intended to make a complaint about her treatment of him.

Judge Marguerite Bolger refused his application in the High Court.

The judge said the student became ill around the beginning of last year during his fifth year and applied for, and was granted, what is known as neutral “IX” grades for four course modules he had been unable to sit.

He successfully completed three modules but there were issues with a module that requires, among other things, placement in a medical practice. He alleged the module co-ordinator was unwilling to engage with him and failed to identify a new placement for him.

The judge said that, on May 13th, 2025, the student and his father attended the co-ordinator’s office without an appointment. The subject head was also present in the office.

The student claimed he intended to provide more detail to the module co-ordinator in relation to his circumstances, which might demonstrate the need to afford him the same variety of accommodations he got in another of the modules.

The student said that after he introduced himself, he “perceived disgust” in the manner with which the co-ordinator regarded him and his father.

The co-ordinator stated she did not have time to talk, that she did not wish to meet, and that he should not return to her office again, said the student.

Two days later, he was informed in an email from the subject head that the disciplinary procedure was being initiated against him.

The student claimed in an email that “a retaliatory and false narrative” was being used to undermine his academic progress and deflect from the core issue he originally raised.

The dean of medicine informed the student that he was to be investigated for breach of the university’s code of conduct. The dean also expressed concern in relation to his mental health and wellbeing and advised him to take a leave of absence until Spring 2026.

The breaches alleged against the student were obstructive, disruptive or reckless behaviour, and violent, abusive, threatening, offensive or unacceptable behaviour, which specifically identified harassment.

The student made bullying and harassment claims against the module co-ordinator and the subject head.

The student last September sought a High Court injunction. The college opposed the application.

Refusing the reliefs the student sought, the judge said she did not consider he had satisfied either the existence of a fair issue or a strong case that the disciplinary process was tainted by objective bias.

She was not satisfied he had established the disciplinary procedure was invoked in retaliation for him having expressed concern about his treatment by the module coordinator.

The judge said the student had not established a fair issue to be tried arising from the disciplinary procedure going ahead before the bullying and harassment procedure.

She was also not satisfied that the manner in which he claimed the disciplinary procedure was flawed, or had gone so irremediably wrong that any conclusion reached which was adverse to him would be bound to be legally unsustainable.

In all the circumstances that have arisen in this case, the least risk of injustice required that this disciplinary procedure, which is still at an early stage, should be allowed to continue, the judge said.