Health Service Executive v Bradley(No.1)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice O'Connor
• Judgment Date: 05 June 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IEHC 280
• Docket Number: [No. 2020 3945 P]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 05 June 2020

BETWEEN

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

PLAINTIFF

AND

NEILL BRADLEY

DEFENDENT

[2020] IEHC 280

O'Connor J.

[No. 2020 3945 P]

THE HIGH COURT

Interlocutory injunction – Duty of confidentiality – Privacy rights – Plaintiff applying for the case to be heard otherwise than in public – Whether there was a risk to the privacy rights of patients and others

Facts: Before the High Court was a notice of motion seeking interlocutory reliefs against the defendant, Mr Bradley. The initial application was for an order directing that the application be heard otherwise than in public. The plaintiff, the Health Service Executive, applied for the case to be heard otherwise than in public (particularly the interlocutory injunction application) because if it was heard in public there was a clear risk to the privacy rights of patients and others. Counsel drew attention to paragraphs 40 to 45 of the grounding affidavit to submit that if anyone heard of an account of this application, they may be alerted to specific material which could be on the internet. He submitted also that if this application proceeded in public, the defendant may use the ultimate order as “an engine” to proceed along the lines that he had threatened in the responses to emails following service of an order of 1st June 2020.

Held by O’Connor J that the plaintiff had not satisfied him that there were circumstances which merited having the interlocutory injunction application heard otherwise than in public. O’Connor J found that it may transpire once the application had been heard that “lesser steps are possible” to anonymise or keep matters private which need not concern those other than patients and the plaintiff who are owed a duty of confidentiality. O’Connor J did not ignore the fear expressed on behalf of the plaintiff in relation to the information which may be out there and which may be accessed potentially by unprincipled people. It appeared to O’Connor J that those concerns could be addressed by framing and publishing the terms of the ultimate order that would be made by the Court.

O’Connor J held that he would refuse the application for this application to be heard otherwise than in public. The Court proceeded to hear the application for interlocutory relief without restricting the public from observing.

Application refused.

EX TEMPORE judgment (No. 1) of Mr. Justice O'Connor delivered on the 5th day of June 2020

1 Before the Court is a notice of motion seeking interlocutory reliefs against the defendant. The initial application is for an order directing that the application be heard otherwise than in public.

2 Last Monday (1st June 2020) I heard an ex parte application, in the intended proceedings leading to these proceedings, by counsel for the plaintiff for an interim injunction restraining the defendant. On that day a similar application for an in camera application was made. Counsel for the plaintiff cited the judgment of O'Donnell J. in the Supreme Court in Gilchrist v. Sunday Newspapers Limited[2017] 2 IR 284 (“Gilchrist”) and the judgment of Kelly P. in Medical Council v. Anonymous[2019] IEHC 109 (“Medical Council Application”).

3 In last Monday's application the Court was brought through the defendant's tweeted threats including one at 5.35pm on 30 May 2020 (through one of his multiple twitter handles) that he “will release on a Monday and a Friday to the public …” databases with details of patients. Earlier in May 2020 he had tweeted about having stolen data to which he could give access.

4 Counsel submitted that publication of details relating to the ex parte hearing and the terms of the order which might be granted (later that day I granted a restraining order) would facilitate the nefarious threats of the plaintiff. It was submitted that the potential release of earlier details on the internet, through publication of the hearing and order would facilitate wider access to the databases, which the defendant formerly...