The High Court has rejected a private clinic’s challenge to the refusal of continuing professional development (CPD) accreditation for a proposed cosmetic surgery masterclass involving live surgery.
RAS Medical Limited, trading as Parkwest Clinic, sought to quash the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland’s decision and also claimed ancillary relief, including damages. Mr Justice Noonan delivered judgment on 19 April 2016 in judicial review proceedings.
The clinic applied in June 2013 for accreditation of a one-day event on polyurethane breast implants and cosmetic surgery, scheduled for 27 July 2013. Its application disclosed that the event would include live surgery. The RCSI asked for further information, including details of a specialist-register consultant supporting the course. It refused accreditation on 9 July, saying the event’s chief organiser had to be on the Specialist Register in Plastic Surgery.
The clinic argued that it had met the published guidelines and that the additional requirement was introduced retrospectively. It also relied on accreditation for a similar earlier event, raised fair-procedure and public-interest arguments, and said the requirement affected EU rights of speakers registered as specialists elsewhere. The RCSI said the guidelines did not guarantee automatic approval, patient safety was a concern, and an internal appeal had not been pursued.
The court found that the guidelines were not rules granting an entitlement to accreditation. The RCSI retained discretion to seek further information and assess an application. The judge accepted evidence that specialist-register supervision or oversight of surgery was regarded as best practice and that the RCSI had raised the specialist-involvement requirement in its response to the application.
The judgment also noted that the clinic had twice suggested Dr Mohammed Jawad was on the Irish Specialist Register, although he was on the General Register only. The judge considered the inaccurate information a legitimate cause for concern. A previous accreditation for a similar event did not prevent standards or policy from changing. The clinic could not litigate the speakers’ EU rights on their behalf; the court also found no objection to requiring verification of qualifications.
The court said the clinic had not exhausted its remedy because it did not pursue or seek an urgent hearing of the available appeal. The appeal would have been a full rehearing under the earlier guidelines. The application was refused. The judgment does not grant the requested relief.