The High Court refused to make declarations sought by the liquidators of Mount Carmel Medical Group (South Dublin) Limited concerning the transfer of patient records to St. James’s Hospital (SJH). Mr Justice Keane delivered the ruling on 7 July 2015 in proceedings under the Companies Acts.
The declarations were part of a wider application. In December 2014, the court had already authorised the liquidators to enter a proposed record transfer and management agreement with SJH, pay specified support and maintenance fees from company assets, and transfer the records after the agreement was executed. The court had adjourned the liquidators’ requests for declarations about who would control the data and whether SJH could disclose records to the liquidators. The Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) was later joined as a notice party.
The company operated Mount Carmel Hospital in Churchtown, Dublin, before it was wound up in February 2014. The liquidators estimated that it held about 280,000 records relating to 118,000 patients, dating from around 1946, as well as about 1.7 million digital X-ray images. They said maintaining the records and meeting data protection obligations would cost €636,500 over five years. Their estimate for the proposed arrangement with SJH was €430,100. The judgment said the liquidation had enough funds for either option during that period.
Under the proposed agreement, SJH would provide record storage and related services and act as data controller. But the company would retain a contractual right to access records and obtain copies or originals for purposes connected with the liquidation. The liquidators also proposed retaining certain original records relating to existing medical negligence claims and a two-week period when the hospital continued to trade during its wind-down.
Justice Keane said the contractual label would not determine who was a data controller: the actual control of the data’s contents and use would matter. He did not decide whether the proposed arrangement would make the company, SJH, or both data controllers. Nor did he decide how the contract’s access provisions should be interpreted. He also rejected the suggestion that the alternative to declaring SJH sole controller was destruction of the records; the judgment identified continued retention by the company as another option.
The court considered that the requested declarations could affect patients’ statutory data protection rights, although they were not parties to the proceedings. It found that the preferential creditors had no true interest in opposing the declarations because reduced liquidation expenses could benefit them, and that SJH likewise had no such interest. The DPC had been joined, but had no statutory power to pre-approve the agreement and lacked the liquidators’ knowledge of the underlying facts.
The court concluded that it should exercise its discretion to refuse the declarations in the circumstances of the case. The ruling did not undo the December 2014 permissions to enter the agreement, pay the specified fees, and transfer records; it refused the further declarations sought.