A dentist who was locked out of a Tallaght dental clinic has been granted interlocutory orders restoring her access to the premises and the practice’s records pending trial of a partnership dispute. The High Court did not decide whether her suspension or expulsion was valid, or the parties’ underlying claims.
Mr Justice Liam Kennedy ruled on 21 January 2025 that the plaintiff had shown a strong case that the defendants’ actions unlawfully excluded her and may have been intended to facilitate a sale of the practice. Those remain issues for trial.
The dispute concerns a partnership formed in 2019 to operate the clinic, now called Aylesbury Clinic. The plaintiff holds a 50% interest; the defendants, a married couple, hold the other half. After she rejected a €300,000 offer from MiDentalCare to buy the practice, the defendants accused her of breaching the partnership agreement. They purported to suspend her in October 2024, changed the clinic’s locks and later notified her that she had been expelled.
The plaintiff disputes the allegations and says the defendants had no right to exclude her. The defendants say she was properly suspended and expelled, and argue that unrestricted access to the clinic and patient records would prejudice them and raise confidentiality concerns.
The judge said the agreement’s meaning and the process required to suspend or expel a partner must be resolved at trial. But he found strong grounds to question whether the defendants had followed the agreement’s procedures: there was no evidence of a partnership meeting or vote, or that the plaintiff had been given a meaningful opportunity to respond. He also found a strong argument that the expulsion process may have been used to press her to accept a sale, rather than for the partnership’s benefit.
The court considered the position before the disputed expulsion to be the relevant status quo. The plaintiff had worked at the clinic for five years and, on the evidence before the court, had been principally responsible for its day-to-day operation. The judge concluded that damages would not adequately address the potential harm to her livelihood, professional reputation and patient relationships. He also considered continued access likely to support patient care while the case proceeds.
The court granted the interlocutory orders sought to prevent the defendants from excluding the plaintiff from the clinic and its patient and other records. It did not grant a separate order restraining a sale: during the proceedings, the defendants undertook not to sell the practice pending determination of the case or further order. The judgment leaves the merits unresolved and directs the parties to progress the proceedings toward trial.