Judgment: 2024-12-20 · Court archive

High Court orders Medical Council committee rehearing after family’s challenge

The court granted leave for judicial review, quashed the challenged decision by consent and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Preliminary Proceedings Committee, which has agreed to receive the family’s submissions, including on its expert report.

High Court · [2024] IEHC 734

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • THE MEDICAL COUNCIL
  • PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS COMMITTEE (Respondent)
  • young woman
  • treating doctor
What

The court granted leave for judicial review, quashed the challenged decision by consent and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Preliminary Proceedings Committee, which has agreed to receive the family’s submissions, including on its expert report.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • hospital
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

In a judgment delivered on 20 December 2024, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted the family leave to seek judicial review and granted certiorari on the basis conceded by the respondents. She remitted the matter to the Medical Council’s Preliminary Proceedings Committee (PPC) for rehearing.

The High Court has ordered a fresh hearing by a differently constituted Medical Council committee after a family challenged the fairness of an investigation into a young woman’s medical care before her death in hospital.

In a judgment delivered on 20 December 2024, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty granted the family leave to seek judicial review and granted certiorari on the basis conceded by the respondents. She remitted the matter to the Medical Council’s Preliminary Proceedings Committee (PPC) for rehearing.

The family had raised concerns about the committee’s procedures, alleging that it had not accepted their submissions on claimed failures of care or allowed them to address an expert report they had obtained. They also alleged objective bias involving a committee member who had served with the treating doctor in another context for a period they said raised concerns about their professional relationship.

The Medical Council and the PPC conceded the objective-bias point and agreed to remit the matter to a differently constituted committee. In correspondence, they also confirmed that the family could make submissions to the new committee, including on the expert report. The judgment does not decide whether the treating doctor was negligent or prescribe the procedures the new committee must follow.

The family opposed resolving the application on that basis and sought a High Court hearing, arguing that issues remained about the scope of the PPC hearing and the family’s rights. The judge said there may have been arguable grounds when the application was first made, but found that the substantial relief sought was being offered through the rehearing. She said the PPC remained the body legally charged with assessing the matter, and that the court’s role was not to direct procedures for the new decision at this stage.

The court also granted the applicants their costs, as conceded by the respondents. The amount is to be adjudicated if the parties cannot agree. The orders were made on 20 December but were not to be perfected until on or before 10 January 2025, allowing the applicants time to consider the ruling.

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