The High Court refused an ophthalmologist’s application to have his theatre privileges restored at Beacon Hospital while his legal action proceeds. Mr Justice Robert Eagar said the application raised a serious question to be tried, but the plaintiff had not met the higher threshold for the mandatory interim order he sought.
The dispute concerns the hospital’s suspension of the consultant’s theatre facilities, imposed with immediate effect on 23 June 2020. The plaintiff argued that the hospital’s medical staff bye-laws did not permit the chief executive to suspend his privileges in the circumstances and without fair procedures. He said patients needing cataract surgery could suffer harm and that damages would not be an adequate remedy.
The hospital said the plaintiff had stopped using its facilities during the Covid-19 arrangements, cancelled his lists from 1 April and had not engaged meaningfully with management. Its chief executive also described complaints about patients being charged for eye injections at the plaintiff’s private clinic. The judgment records that those complaints were under investigation; the court did not determine whether the allegations were established.
The judge noted substantial disagreements between the affidavits and said those issues would require examination at trial. He was satisfied, however, that the plaintiff had failed to engage properly with hospital management about his decision to move his practice and the concerns management sought to discuss.
Because the requested order would effectively require the hospital to restore the suspended privileges, the judge treated it as a mandatory interlocutory injunction. He found that the plaintiff had shown a fair question for trial, but not a strong, clear case likely to succeed. He also found that the plaintiff had not adequately explained how he was caring for patients who needed urgent treatment, and had provided no evidence substantiating the claimed irreparable damage to his reputation.
The court refused the interim relief. It did not decide whether the hospital had acted outside its powers; the judgment said that issue was for the trial judge. The underlying action therefore remained unresolved.