The Court of Appeal has dismissed a doctor’s appeal against the dismissal of his action seeking to stop a Medical Council fitness-to-practise inquiry. It affirmed the High Court order refusing the reliefs he sought.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Allen on 6 October 2023, said Dr Samuel Van Eeden’s action was directed at preventing an inquiry into allegations of professional misconduct, including importing and administering unauthorised medicines and giving an incorrect answer on an annual retention form. The allegations remained matters for the Fitness to Practise Committee; the appeal judgment did not determine whether they were proved.
Van Eeden had been acquitted in the District Court in October 2014 of 16 charges concerning the procurement and importation of eight prescription-only medicines found in luggage at Dublin Airport in June 2012. The Court of Appeal said the disciplinary allegations were not the same issues as those criminal charges. Among other differences, one allegation concerned Lidocaine, which was not among the products in the criminal charges, and another concerned the intended administration of medicines to patients in his care.
The court rejected his arguments that the inquiry was barred by the acquittals, that it amounted to unjust discrimination against a doctor, and that the statutory disciplinary process unconstitutionally usurped the courts’ role. It said established authorities supported the statutory framework and that the acquittal did not determine the distinct professional conduct allegations.
The appeal also challenged the High Court’s refusal to let Van Eeden add a new argument under Article 38 of the Constitution shortly before trial. The Court of Appeal found the proposed amendment unclear, available to him from 2016, and substantially new. Allowing it would have prejudiced the respondents and caused further delay, so the High Court had acted within its discretion in refusing it.
The Court of Appeal rejected claims that the High Court hearing was unfair and upheld the finding that the plenary action was judicial-review in nature. It also addressed the complaint about material supplied by the Health Products Regulatory Authority, noting that the claim had not been pursued at trial and that the basis for it had been known earlier.
The appeal was dismissed on all grounds and the High Court order affirmed. The respondents were given an opportunity to make submissions on costs; if Van Eeden made no submission within 14 days of electronic delivery, the respondents’ appeal costs would be payable by him, subject to adjudication if not agreed.