The High Court refused Silvergrove Nursing Home Limited’s application to quash a notice cancelling the nursing home’s registration, finding no basis to grant judicial review relief. The judgment concerned the legality and procedure of the notice; it did not decide the pending District Court appeal on the home’s fitness or the merits of its registration.
The Chief Inspector issued a proposed cancellation decision in June 2018 and a notice of decision in October 2018. The notice relied on the view that the registered provider was not fit to operate the designated centre, citing failures in governance, management, quality assurance and risk management, and an inability to sustain improvements identified in inspections.
The provider challenged the notice on several grounds, including errors in statutory references and the home’s name, reliance on earlier inspection findings, and an argument that amendments to legislation had interrupted the Chief Inspector’s inspection powers from 2014 to 2017. It also argued that inspections were carried out by HIQA rather than by inspectors acting for the Chief Inspector, and complained that the October 2018 inspection had informed the decision without being identified in the notice.
Justice Ní Raifeartaigh rejected those arguments. She found that the legislative amendments had not removed the inspection and registration powers, and said that even if there had been a technical gap, she would have declined relief because of its consequences for other nursing homes and for the applicant’s own registration. She concluded that errors in the notice, including an incorrect section reference and references to a non-existent 2017 Act, did not mislead the provider or make the notice invalid.
The judge accepted that inspectors within the Chief Inspector’s office had carried out the inspections, despite the reports bearing HIQA branding. She also held that the Chief Inspector could consider the pattern across inspections when assessing fitness, including earlier shortcomings followed by assurances and later problems. The provider had not disputed the October inspection’s factual findings, and the judge concluded that the opportunity to make further submissions would have been used to seek more time to comply.
The provider had filed a statutory appeal to Trim District Court in November 2018. The High Court said that appeal was a more suitable forum for considering the provider’s substantive fitness and later efforts to address concerns. It refused relief in the judicial review, including on the basis of its discretion. The judgment does not report the outcome of the District Court appeal.