The Court of Appeal has granted C leave to issue proceedings against GP John Casey over his recommendation in 2013 that C be admitted involuntarily to a psychiatric unit. The ruling allows the proposed claim to proceed; it does not determine whether Casey acted in bad faith or without reasonable care, or whether C will succeed at trial.
C’s proposed claim concerns events at Clifden Garda station on 23 and 24 April 2013. C alleges that Casey improperly completed a recommendation under the Mental Health Act 2001 after being influenced by gardaí. Casey denies wrongdoing. In an affidavit, he said he became concerned about C’s behaviour and mental health during his assessment and recommended involuntary admission after a later consultation.
The court reviewed a custody record stating that, after an initial examination, Casey considered C to have no underlying medical condition and to be fit for interview. C was interviewed, then seen again by Casey after midnight. The record says Casey then considered a psychiatric assessment necessary and completed the statutory form for involuntary admission. The form itself was not before the appeal court, which said its absence meant the position could not be fully clarified.
The Court of Appeal found that the records raised discrepancies about how the later decision was reached. It said those issues went beyond mere assertion and were sufficient to meet the low threshold for leave under section 73 of the Act. The section requires leave before proceedings can be brought over an act purportedly done under the Act; leave must be granted unless the court is satisfied the claim is frivolous or vexatious, or that there are no reasonable grounds to allege bad faith or lack of reasonable care.
The court rejected the argument that C’s failure to obtain an expert report made the application an abuse of process. It said there is no statutory requirement for an expert report at the leave stage, and noted that C’s principal allegation was bad faith. The court also declined to decide whether any eventual claim would be out of time, leaving limitation issues for fuller argument if raised later.
The appeal court set aside the High Court order refusing leave, including its costs order, and granted leave to issue the draft Civil Bill. It reserved the costs of the leave application in both courts to the hearing of the proceedings, subject to written submissions seeking a different order. The judgment stressed that the matter remains for a trial judge, where the claim will face a higher evidential standard.