Samuel Van Eeden v The Medical Council Ireland the Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Twomey |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IEHC 571 |
| Docket Number | [2021 No. 1028 P] |
| Year | 2021 |
| Court | High Court |
[2021] IEHC 571
[2021 No. 1028 P]
THE HIGH COURT
Professional misconduct – Declaratory relief – Extension – Plaintiff seeking to extend the grounds of relief – Whether the extension would prejudice the defendants
Facts: The first defendant, the Medical Council, issued a Notice of Inquiry on the 22nd September 2016 to the plaintiff, Mr van Eeden, regarding the holding of an inquiry as to whether the plaintiff had engaged in professional misconduct or poor professional performance, following the plaintiff’s acquittal by the District Court of various charges relating to the importation of various medicinal products without a marketing or manufacturing authorisation. In the substantive proceedings, the plaintiff sought ten declarations with a particular focus on invidious discrimination and a breach of the equality provisions in Article 40.1 of the Constitution i.e. at paragraphs 1, 2 3, 4, 9 and 10 of the Plenary Summons and also res judicata at paragraphs 7 and 8. In addition there was a claim that the Medical Council usurped the powers of a court contrary to Article 37 of the Constitution. There was a motion for an order extending the plaintiff’s existing grounds of relief against the defendants to include a declaration that the practices engaged in by the Medical Council contravene Article 38 of the Constitution, on the grounds that the Medical Council purported to make findings of criminal conduct, which is reserved by Article 38 to a court of law.
Held by the High Court (Twomey J) that: (i) no excuse had been provided as to why the application to amend was not brought sooner; (ii) the application to amend came very late in the day, not so much on the eve of the trial but actually on the first day of the trial and had taken up a full day of the four-day trial; (iii) it appeared to the Court that the plaintiff may have been seeking to introduce during the hearing of the action a substantive new claim regarding inquiries by disciplinary bodies in relation to matters which overlap with criminal law, and of potentially wide-ranging effect regarding regulatory mechanisms generally, and this would prejudice the defendants; (iv) if the Court was wrong about it being a substantial amendment, and the plaintiff was correct and the proposed amendment was not in fact introducing anything substantially new into the proceedings, then it follows that little or no prejudice would be suffered by the plaintiff if the amendment was refused; and (v) it seemed to the Court that the proceedings in this case were in substance judicial review proceedings since the effective aim of the proceedings was to quash the Notice of Inquiry issued by the Medical Council, although it was framed as declaratory relief sought in plenary proceedings and there was a claim of unconstitutionality against Part 8 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007.
Twomey J held that the application to extend the existing grounds of relief would be rejected.
Application refused.
JUDGMENT (Ex Tempore) of Mr. Justice Twomey delivered on the 28th July, 2021
This is a motion for an order extending the plaintiff's existing grounds of relief against the defendants to include a declaration that the practices engaged in by the Medical Council contravene Article 38 of the Constitution, on the grounds that the Medical Council purports to make findings of criminal conduct, which is reserved by Article 38 to a court of law.
The substantive proceedings relate to the issue by the Medical Council of a Notice of Inquiry on the 22nd September 2016 to the plaintiff regarding the holding of an inquiry as to whether the plaintiff had engaged in professional misconduct or poor professional performance, following the plaintiff's acquittal by the District Court of various charges relating to the importation of various medicinal products without a marketing or manufacturing authorisation.
In the substantive proceedings, the plaintiff seeks ten declarations with a particular focus on invidious discrimination and a breach of the equality provisions in Article 40.1 of the Constitution i.e. at paragraphs 1, 2 3, 4, 9 and 10 of the Plenary Summons and also res judicata at paragraphs 7 and 8. In addition there is a claim that the Medical Council usurped the powers of a court contrary to Article 37 of the Constitution which article deals with ‘ matters other than criminal matters’, since...
To continue reading
Request your trial