BUPA Ireland Ltd v Health Insurance Authority
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Kearns J. |
| Judgment Date | 02 December 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] IESC 80 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | [S.C. No. 315 of 2005] |
| Date | 02 December 2005 |
BETWEEN
AND
AND
[2005] IESC 80
Kearns J.
Macken J.
Clarke J.
THE SUPREME COURT
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Parties Removal of party from proceedings - Whether presence of notice party necessary for effectual and complete determination of proceedings - Whether notice party directly affected by proceedings before court - Rules of the Superior Court 1986 (SI 15/1986), O 15, r 13 & O 84, rr 22(6) & 26(1) - Notice party reinstated (315/2005 - SC 2/12/2005) [2005] IEHC 80 - [2006] 1 ILRM 308 - Bupa Ireland Ltd v Health Insurance Authority
HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1994 S12
CONSTITUTION ART 15
CONSTITUTION ART 21
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
CONSTITUTION ART 40
TREATY OF ROME ART 10
TREATY OF ROME ART 82
TREATY OF ROME ART 86
RISK EQUALISATION SCHEME 2003 SI 261/2003
RSC O.84 r 22(6)
RSC O.84 r 26(1)
RSC O.84 r 22(2)
O'KEEFFE v BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39 1992 ILRM 237
SPIN COMMUNICATIONS T/A STORM FM v INDEPENDENT RADIO & TELEVISION COMMISSION UNREP SUPREME 14.4.2000 2000/16/6286
BUCKLEY & ORS (SINN FEIN) v AG 1950 IR 67
BLAKE v AG 1982 IR 117 1981 ILRM 34
O'B v S 1984 IR 316
RSC O.15 r13
BARLOW & ORS v FANNING & UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK (UCC) 2002 2 IR 593 2003 1 ILRM 29
FINCORIZ SAS v ANSBACHER & CO LTD UNREP LYNCH 20.4.1987 1987/2/592
HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND 4ED VOL 37 PARA 226
JUDGMENT delivered by Kearns J. on the 2nd day of December, 2005
These proceedings concern an appeal brought by the notice party/appellant, The Voluntary Health Insurance Board ( "VHI"), from the judgment of the High Court (Peart J.) delivered on the 27 July, 2005, and from the order made pursuant to that judgment on 29 July, 2005, whereby the High Court directed that the action should proceed as between the applicants/respondents, BUPA Ireland Limited and BUPA Insurance Limited ( "BUPA") and the third and fourth named respondents being respectively The Health Insurance Authority ( "HIA"), the Minister for Health and Children ( "the Minister"), Ireland and the Attorney General ( "the State") without the presence of VHI as a notice party. The purpose of the appeal therefore is to reinstate the VHI as a notice party on the basis that it is a party genuinely interested in and affected by these proceedings which are scheduled to be heard in the High Court in early December.
The proceedings were commenced by BUPA pursuant to leave granted by the High Court (Clarke J.) on 24 May, 2005. As originally initiated, BUPA's claim sought to impugn a recommendation ( "the First Recommendation") dated 29 April, 2005 of the HIA to the Minister that payments under the Risk Equalisation Scheme, 2003 ( "the Scheme") should be commenced by the Minister. BUPA also sought to impugn the Scheme and certain provisions of the Health Insurance Act, 1994 (as amended) ( "the Act") under which the Scheme was established. BUPA sought to do so on various grounds, including constitutional grounds, and other grounds which include alleged breaches of the law of the European Union.
The principle of community rating is at the heart of the dispute between the parties, a dispute the resolution of which is seen by both BUPA and VHI as having enormous financial implications for both insurers to the point where it has been said that a successful outcome for one party would threaten the other's financial viability and ability to compete. The fundamental principle of community rating is that all insured persons should share equally in the cost of health care on the basis that the excess of premiums over claims for younger, healthier members is used to pay the excess of claims over premiums for older and less healthy members. It is based on the principle of societal and inter-generational solidarity and prevents insurers risk-rating individuals for health insurance. It is combined with the principle of "open enrolment" which dictates that a private health insurer cannot refuse cover to anyone below age 65 and also the principle of "lifetime cover" which guarantees the right of the insured to renew a private health insurance policy. Furthermore the legislation incorporates the principle of "minimum benefits", which dictates that all private health insurance schemes or plans must provide at least a certain level of coverage. The scheme is intended to assist the maintenance of community rating across the market for people who are or may become privately insured, providing that health insurance undertakings, whose risk profile of members is less costly than the risk profile of all insured persons, should compensate those undertakings with more costly risk profiles. While VHI contend that the Scheme is essential to render effective the principle of community rating, BUPA takes quite a different position. It contends:-
(a) That s.12 of the Act provides for an unauthorised delegation of legislative power contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution.
(b) That the Risk Equalisation Scheme implemented under s.12 of the Act amounts to an imposition of a form of direct or indirect taxation, or implementation of a money bill, by way of delegated legislation contrary to Articles 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
(c) That the imposition of charges pursuant to s.12 interferes with BUPA's rights to private property and to carry on its business, contrary to articles 40.3 and 43 of the Constitution.
(d) That s.12 of the Act and the Scheme constitute an impermissible restriction by Ireland upon BUPA's right of establishment and freedom to provide services subsisting under the EC Treaty and the Third Non-Life Insurance Directive, contrary to the provisions of the Treaty and the Directive.
(e) That the State has failed to discharge its obligations under Article 10 of the EC Treaty in enacting a Scheme which results or is capable of resulting in the reinforcement of VHI's dominant position in the Irish market, contrary to Article 82 of the Treaty.
(f) That the State has breached Article 86 of the EC Treaty in enacting a scheme which might have the consequence of bringing about the abuse of the VHI's dominant position contrary to Article 82 of the Treaty.
At present the Scheme does not operate. The Act and the Statutory Instrument made thereunder provide for the introduction of the Scheme in certain circumstances. The Risk Equalisation Scheme, 2003 ( S.I. No.261/2003) provides for an evaluation by HIA of the operation of health insurance in the market and in particular requires the HIA to determine the nature and distribution of risks amongst Scheme undertakings and to make recommendations to the Minister. The Minister is empowered to make a determination to introduce the Scheme. If the Scheme is implemented, it will undoubtedly involve the making of very substantial payments to VHI.
When granting leave to BUPA to commence these proceedings on 24 May, 2005, the court also granted a stay on the implementation of the First Recommendation. Ultimately, however, the Minister did not accept the first Recommendation and the Scheme was not implemented. However, as appears later, the HIA thereafter made a provisional Second Recommendation that the Scheme be implemented, which said recommendation became a final Recommendation on the 28 October, 2005, the day following the hearing of this appeal by the court.
By Notice of Motion dated 27 May, 2005, application was made on behalf of VHI pursuant to Order 84, Rule 22(6) and/or Order 84, Rule 26(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts and/or pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court, joining VHI as a notice party to the proceedings and permitting VHI to participate in the proceedings. In the grounding affidavit in support of the application, David Clarke, solicitor for the VHI, outlined VHI's interest in the proceedings. He asserted there was a clear justification for VHI being joined as a notice party because VHI was and is the party entitled to receive the greater part of any funds becoming available as a result of payments directed by the Minister under the Scheme. VHI also relied on the fact that the Statement grounding BUPA's application for judicial review and the affidavit sworn on behalf of BUPA by Martin O'Rourke on 24th May, 2005, made a number of specific claims, assertions and allegations in relation to the situation and conduct of VHI in the market.
The High Court (Quirke J.) made an order on 30 May, 2005, joining VHI as a notice party to the proceedings. It is of some significance to note that BUPA did not oppose VHI's application at that time.
Thereafter, Opposition papers were served on behalf of the State and on behalf of VHI. The Statement of Opposition on behalf of VHI was verified by an affidavit sworn by Vincent Sheridan, the Chief Executive Officer of VHI, on 15 June, 2005. In the meantime, however, the Minister decided on 27 June, 2005, not to accept the First Recommendation and the claim by BUPA in respect of the First Recommendation as such became moot. However, the balance of BUPA's claims continued, although from that point in time onwards - and in the absence of any further recommendation - it is fair to say that BUPA regarded the presence of the HIA and VHI as superfluous to the issues to be disposed of by the High Court.
The matter came back to the High Court (Quirke J.) on 4 July, 2005, when, with the agreement of the parties, the court directed the parties to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shields v The Central Bank of Ireland
...with the distinctions between Order 15 r.13 and judicial review. He made reference to BUPA Ireland Ltd v Health Insurance Authority [2006] 1 I.R. 201 in which the Supreme Court had been, according to Fennelly J., “primarily of the view that the judicial review rules provided the framework f......
-
McDonagh v McDonagh
...liable to satisfy any judgment either directly or indirectly." 21 The case of BUPA Ireland Limited v. Health Insurance Authority [2006] 1 I.L.R.M. 308 concerned an appeal by the notice party, VHI, from an order of the High Court which directed that the case should proceed as between the app......
-
Start Mortgages Designated Activity Company v Peter Barry
... ... over the balance of the proceeds of a fire insurance claim – Whether the trial judge erred in law, breached ... because – Counsel referred to Bank of Ireland v O'Donnell [2015] IESCDET 17 where, in a judgment ... in P. J. Carroll & Ors v Minister for Health and Children [2005] 1 I.R. 294 ) that an appellate court ... ...
-
North Westmeath Turbine Action Group v an Bord Pleanála
...named as notice parties. Rule 22(2) was considered by the Supreme Court in BUPA Ireland Ltd. v. Health Insurance Authority (No. 1) [2006] 1 IR 201. The facts there were different in that VHI were seeking to be joined as a notice party against the opposition of the applicant but that does no......