The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by the owners and operators of Carysfort Nursing Home over requests for fire safety information issued by the Chief Inspector of Social Services.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled that the requests were lawfully made under section 65 of the Health Act 2007, which requires a registered provider to submit information the Chief Inspector considers necessary to carry out her functions. The court held that deciding whether to renew a nursing home’s registration, and considering whether to apply to the District Court to cancel or change a registration, form part of those functions.
The case concerned Breda Pakenham, Edward Pakenham and their partnership, trading as Carysfort Nursing Home. The partnership had applied to renew the home’s registration in July 2017. Inspectors visited the South Dublin home in December 2017 and January 2018. After the second visit, an inspector referred fire safety concerns to Dublin Fire Brigade. Brigade staff inspected the home and sent an outcome notification and report to Edward Pakenham on 2 February 2018. He said the partnership then took immediate steps to address the concerns.
On 8 February, the Chief Inspector wrote to Edward Pakenham seeking details of the hazards identified by the fire brigade, related correspondence and reports, and actions taken or proposed to address the risks. The letter warned that failure to comply with a section 65 request was an offence. After the partnership’s solicitors challenged the legal basis for the request, the Chief Inspector said the information was needed to assess compliance as part of the pending renewal decision and in considering statutory powers relating to serious risks to residents.
The applicants argued that the Chief Inspector’s functions were limited and that the information request crossed into work reserved to the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA). At the hearing, they accepted that HIQA’s statutory monitoring function excluded designated centres such as nursing homes, but argued that neither HIQA nor the Chief Inspector had a continuing monitoring function. The judge rejected that interpretation, finding that the legislation authorised inspection to assess compliance with regulations and standards.
The applicants also challenged the decision to prosecute them over later information requests. The court did not set aside the District Court summonses. It held that arguments about whether the individuals could be liable for an offence should be raised as a defence in the District Court, and that judicial review was not appropriate to determine those issues at this stage. The prosecution challenge based on the validity of the information requests failed because the judge had found the requests lawful.
The application for judicial review was dismissed in its entirety. The judgment did not determine the criminal charges or decide the applicants’ liability under the summonses.