The Supreme Court has ruled that the High Court has jurisdiction to decide costs in an application under section 51 of the Medical Practitioners Act 1978, allowing an appeal by the Medical Council. It remitted the costs issue to the High Court because that court had not exercised its discretion on costs.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s determination of 10 March 2003 that it had no jurisdiction to make a costs order in relation to the Council’s section 51 application against a registered doctor identified in the judgment as P.A.O.
The Council brought the application after receiving a Garda Síochána complaint about the doctor’s method of prescribing benzodiazepines to drug addicts. The High Court made an ex parte order on 28 June 2002 and an interlocutory order on 15 July 2002. Costs were reserved on both occasions.
A later Fitness to Practise Committee found misconduct on 18 of 29 allegations. It found some facts proved on the other 11, but said those facts did not amount to misconduct. The judgment says the Council decided on 16 December 2000 to erase the doctor from the register. On 24 February 2003, the High Court directed the erasure and awarded the Council costs for that separate application.
The Supreme Court considered whether the absence of an express costs provision in section 51 removed the High Court’s general costs jurisdiction. The Council argued that courts could award costs unless legislation expressly excluded that power. The High Court had reasoned that sections 46, 47 and 49 of the Act expressly address costs, while section 51 does not.
Delivering judgment on 1 April 2004, Denham J. said section 51 provided for interim or interlocutory orders creating a temporary “holding position” pending a final decision on fitness to practise. Although section 51 was silent on costs, that silence did not exclude the general law and the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986. The Court concluded that the High Court had jurisdiction to determine costs in a section 51 application and upheld the appeal on that issue.
The Supreme Court did not decide what costs should be awarded. It remitted the matter to the High Court President to exercise discretion on costs.