The High Court has ordered the suspension of a general practitioner’s registration and prohibited him from practising medicine pending further order, after finding that interim restrictions were necessary to protect the public and patients.
The order followed an application by the Medical Council under section 60 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007. The court did not determine the underlying fitness-to-practise complaint, resolve conflicts in the evidence or make findings of fact about the allegations against the doctor.
The Council’s concerns arose from a December 2024 communication by directors of an out-of-hours GP service where the doctor had worked until October 2024. They alleged escalating complaints about his consultations, record-keeping and clinical care, including two cases involving patients with chest symptoms and concerns about referrals for gynaecological complaints. The doctor disputed the allegations and said his care was appropriate.
The Council also relied on a report by consultant psychiatrist Professor G, who assessed the doctor in April 2025. Professor G diagnosed a “persistent delusional disorder of persecutory type”, but concluded that the condition had not, to date, affected the doctor’s fitness for work. He recommended that the doctor engage with a supportive health service and the Council’s Health Committee as conditions of ongoing registration.
The doctor rejected the diagnosis and alleged that a Garda detective had influenced the assessment as part of a conspiracy against him. Professor G told the Council he had not met a detective before the assessment. The doctor also refused conditions and undertakings proposed by the Council that would have enabled him to seek support and potentially return to practice.
The judge said the application concerned whether interim orders were needed to address risk while the statutory process continued, not whether the doctor was in fact medically unfit or whether the complaint was proven. The court found the Council’s concerns legitimate and concluded that the legal test for section 60 orders was met. It considered that practising even on a limited locum basis without the proposed conditions would leave a significant risk.
The orders will remain in force pending further order of the court. The doctor has liberty to apply to vary or modify them if he is prepared to agree to the Council’s proposed conditions and undertakings. The case was listed for further issues on 16 July 2025.