The High Court has refused a family permission to challenge Medical Council and HIQA decisions connected with complaints arising from the birth of Nathan Leahy in 2003.
Nathan Leahy, his mother Eleanor Leahy and stepfather Ferenc Fekete sought judicial review against seven State and regulatory bodies. Ms Leahy moved the application on behalf of her adult son, who the judgment records as having additional needs.
The potentially reviewable decisions included a HIQA report dated 8 May 2015 and a Medical Council complaint process which concluded in 2021. The Medical Council’s Preliminary Proceedings Committee decided in April 2021 that there was insufficient cause for further action on Ms Leahy’s complaint, and the Council confirmed in June 2021 that no further action should be taken.
The applicants sought a range of remedies, including compensation, apologies and mediation. Ms Justice Bolger said many of the requested remedies could not be granted in judicial review proceedings. The potentially available remedy was certiorari, which allows the High Court to quash an unlawful administrative decision.
The central difficulty was delay. The judge noted that one challenged decision was almost 10 years old and another almost four years old when the proceedings were brought. Both related to events surrounding a birth more than 20 years earlier.
Ms Leahy referred to issues including alleged procedural failures, disputed records, lack of legal representation and her own medical conditions. The court found those matters did not adequately explain the delay. It also noted that the applicants had pursued other litigation during the same period.
The court found that extending time would cause prejudice because records had been destroyed under retention policies and individuals involved had identified difficulties responding after such a long interval.
Ms Justice Bolger also considered the proposed case weak and noted an existing litigation restraint order arising from repeated litigation concerning the same underlying events.
Leave for judicial review was refused. The judge’s indicative view was that the successful respondents should receive their costs, with final costs and orders left for a later hearing.