The High Court ordered that the Health Service Executive’s decision to place consultant psychiatrist Shafiq Khan on administrative leave, and a later direction barring him from clinical practice, would have no legal effect until further order. The ruling was made at the interlocutory stage; it did not finally determine the parties’ dispute or the allegations about Khan’s clinical work.
Khan, a temporary locum consultant in the HSE’s North Eastern area, was placed on paid administrative leave on 4 January 2008 after a meeting about concerns involving six patients. The concerns had been raised by Dr Jackson, a colleague and clinical director. The judgment records that the meeting discussed the cases and that Khan responded to the issues raised. The HSE had told the Medical Council in January that it had concerns about Khan but “no evidence that the concerns have validity”.
The dispute before the court concerned the process followed at the meeting. During an interval, Khan and his representative left the room while Jackson remained there with Local Area Manager Anne-Marie Hoey, who chaired the meeting, and an HSE employee relations manager. Hoey later told Khan that an independent inquiry was needed and that he would be put on administrative leave. Khan argued that Jackson, as complainant, may have taken part in the decision-making discussion. Hoey said she made the decision; the court noted that neither she nor Jackson expressly denied that they had discussed the matter during the interval.
Justice McMahon said he was not deciding whether Jackson had in fact spoken with Hoey, a matter for the trial. He found that the circumstances, including Jackson’s presence during the interval and discussion with the employee relations manager, supported a strong case that Khan was likely to succeed on his fair-procedures claim. He also concluded that a reasonable person in Khan’s position could fear that an interval discussion might influence the decision.
The court considered the balance of convenience and the adequacy of damages. Khan remained on full pay, but the judge considered the potential harm to his professional reputation and standing, and found damages would rarely be an adequate remedy in such circumstances. He also considered the HSE’s patient-safety concerns, noting its letter to the Medical Council and that the specialty was psychiatry.
The court did not grant every order sought in the motion. It made the two orders suspending the legal effect of the 4 January leave decision and the 9 January direction until further order. It also ordered the HSE to file its defence within two weeks, if it had not already done so. The substantive case remained to be heard.