The High Court has refused an interim injunction sought by 26 dentists seeking to prevent the Health Service Executive (HSE) from applying changes to the Dental Treatment Services Scheme (DTSS). The decision was made at an interlocutory stage; it did not decide the underlying contractual dispute.
The dentists challenged HSE Circular No. 008/10, issued on 26 April 2010, which implemented a €63 million cap on DTSS spending. Before the circular, eligible patients could receive routine “above the line” treatment without prior approval, while more complex “below the line” treatment required approval. The judgment says the circular’s effect was to limit eligible patients to emergency dental care. The dentists alleged that the changes breached their contracts. The HSE maintained it could vary the scheme’s terms unilaterally, and conceded for this application that there was a fair question to be tried.
The court’s decision concerned whether damages would adequately compensate the dentists if they were denied an injunction but later succeeded at trial. Justice Irvine said that would depend on evidence of a real risk that practices would close for a significant period before a related case, Reid and Turner v HSE, was decided. The parties had agreed that the outcome of that case would determine the legal issue in this litigation. Its trial was scheduled for 7 December 2010, and the judge considered a decision likely by mid-January 2011.
The dentists relied on accounting reports projecting reduced income and possible closures. The judge found that some projections rested on unsupported assumptions, including estimated costs and a 15% fall in private-practice income. She also noted that, apart from one dentist, the plaintiffs had not personally verified the financial figures. For three dentists described in later evidence as associates, she found the evidence did not sufficiently establish that they would be let go before January 2011.
The court accepted that the circular adversely affected the dentists and that some had reduced staff hours or let staff go. But it was not satisfied that the 26 applicants had shown their practices were likely to close for a significant period before the related case was decided. It concluded their potential losses could be assessed in damages. Because it found damages adequate, the court did not consider the balance of convenience.
Justice Irvine refused the application for an interlocutory injunction. The underlying action and the contractual dispute remained unresolved by this ruling.