The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by A. O’C against a High Court order suspending her registration as a nurse and midwife pending an inquiry into alleged professional misconduct.
The High Court’s June 2010 order said her registration in the General Nurse Division and Midwives Division of the register maintained by An Bord Altranais would not have effect while its Fitness to Practise Committee considered her fitness to practise. It also restrained her from nursing and midwifery during that period. The Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Denham on 21 December 2011, affirmed the High Court order and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal concerned an application under section 44 of the Nurses Act 1985. The Board had decided at a meeting on 2 March 2010 to apply to the High Court, having satisfied itself that doing so was in the public interest. The Supreme Court held there was no obligation on the Board to give prior notification before starting section 44 proceedings. In the circumstances, it found the notice given to A. O’C of the proposed procedure reasonable, and said she would have a full opportunity to respond in court.
The judgment records that the appellant had agreed in 2008 not to practise, later withdrew that undertaking, and told the Board she intended to return to practice. The Board invited her to attend its 2 March 2010 meeting and sent her the documents it intended to consider on 1 March. Her solicitor sought an adjournment; the Board met in her absence and decided to seek the order.
The appellant argued that the suspension was too broad and should have been limited to domiciliary midwifery, and raised issues about the order’s procedural basis, participation before the Board, costs and liberty to apply. The Supreme Court said the Board’s special summons sought a full order pending the inquiry and found no error by the High Court on the material before it. It allowed further evidence on appeal on a provisional basis, without deciding its relevance.
The suspension was pending the Fitness to Practise Committee’s inquiry. The Supreme Court did not determine the underlying professional misconduct allegations.