Judgment: 2026-07-17 · Court archive

High Court suspends Bray doctor Regine Grah over prescribing and insurance concerns

High Court · [2026] IEHC 562

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Medical Council
  • Mr Justice David Barniville
What

High Court suspends Bray doctor Regine Grah over prescribing and insurance concerns

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Silver Oak Family Practice
  • Bray
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judge found the allegations serious and the documentary evidence, taken at its highest, strong enough to justify intervention. He also identified significant concerns about whether Grah had effective professional indemnity insurance for her private practice.

The High Court has suspended Bray doctor Regine Grah from the medical register and barred her from practising pending further Medical Council fitness-to-practise proceedings.

Mr Justice David Barniville made the orders on July 17, 2026 after the Council raised concerns about prescribing practices reported by three pharmacies in Wicklow and South Dublin. Grah operates Silver Oak Family Practice in Bray and works in private general practice.

The complaints alleged repeated prescribing of benzodiazepines and sedative Z-drugs in high doses or large quantities, sometimes without a clear treatment plan. Pharmacists also alleged that the same prescription had been sent to multiple pharmacies and that concerns about prescriptions were not always adequately addressed.

The material before the court included copies of prescriptions. One patient was recorded as receiving four prescriptions between December 2025 and February 2026 amounting to 224 diazepam tablets and 224 Xanax tablets.

Grah told a Medical Council committee that some patients were already taking these medications when they came to her, that some treatments had been initiated elsewhere and that she intended to reduce patients' dependence gradually. She also said controlled drugs were not issued through the practice website without reassessment.

The High Court stressed that it was not deciding whether the allegations were true. At this interim stage, the question was whether suspension was necessary to protect the public.

The judge found the allegations serious and the documentary evidence, taken at its highest, strong enough to justify intervention. He also identified significant concerns about whether Grah had effective professional indemnity insurance for her private practice.

The court concluded that public-protection and patient-safety concerns outweighed Grah's rights to reputation and livelihood. Her registration was suspended and she was prohibited from practising until the statutory fitness-to-practise process advances. She may apply to have the orders set aside on 72 hours' notice to the Council.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review