The High Court refused Daniel McCarthy’s application to compel the Veterinary Council of Ireland to provide further particulars in his judicial review proceedings. The application concerned the Council’s explanation of two alleged errors in a disciplinary committee report. The court did not determine the underlying challenge to that report, and said the refusal did not affect other pre-trial applications that might be available to McCarthy.
McCarthy, a vet and pharmacist, is seeking to quash the committee’s decision and recommendation following an inquiry into his conduct. The committee found professional misconduct and recommended that his name be struck from the Council’s register. The Council is responsible for imposing sanctions. Those findings and recommendations are challenged in the separate judicial review proceedings.
One issue concerns the committee report’s reference to OxyContin, rather than Oxytocin, an animal remedy. The Council accepted that the reference was an error and said the committee’s conclusions were based on the totality of the evidence. The other issue concerns a witness statement describing pallets of orders delivered to a pharmacy and collected by members of a buyers’ group. McCarthy contends the passage was taken out of context because it concerned non-prescription medicines. The Council disputes that account and says the committee relied on the evidence as a whole.
McCarthy asked the Council to set out further factual support for its position that neither alleged error affected the committee’s conclusions. His solicitor argued that the Council’s statements were bare assertions and that the Council had access to the recording of the disciplinary hearing. The Council responded that the requests sought evidence rather than clarification of the case it had to meet.
Justice MacGrath said he was not satisfied that McCarthy would be taken by surprise without further particulars. The statement of opposition made clear that, on the medication reference, the Council relied on the totality of the evidence and accepted an error had occurred. On the pallets issue, the Council likewise relied on the evidence as a whole rather than any single alleged conclusion.
The judge said the pleadings adequately defined the disputes. In judicial review proceedings, evidence relied on to support an assertion must be set out in affidavits, which the parties would see before the hearing. The party making a positive assertion bears the burden of proving it, and any evidential deficiency could be considered by the trial judge.
The court refused the requested relief. It did not rule on whether the alleged errors affected the disciplinary findings or whether the committee’s recommendation should be quashed.