The High Court has directed that a judicial review brought by Ahmed Abdelaatti against the College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, the Medical Council and State respondents proceed to a plenary hearing with oral evidence. The court did not decide the underlying challenge to the refusal of a certificate of satisfactory completion of specialist training.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the case involved a significant factual dispute about the training and assessment received by non-consultant hospital doctors. The applicant argues that he received training through a “parallel pathway” similar to that of Scheme Anaesthesia Trainees (SAT), including advice, supervision and assessment by college tutors and structured reference letters.
The applicant’s wider case is that European rules on recognition of professional qualifications do not permit the State to certify doctors through two routes with different titles and qualifications. The respondents dispute his characterisation of his training. Their opposition papers describe it as a different route to certification, referred to as “Category E”, and/or continuing professional development. Those positions remain to be resolved.
The applicant sought directions for oral evidence, including the option to cross-examine people who had sworn affidavits. He told the court he was not seeking to convert the judicial review into private law proceedings. The court said the case would retain its public law character and its procedural safeguards, including arguments raised by respondents that the proceedings were time-barred or that the applicant lacked sufficient interest. Those objections were not decided in this judgment.
The judge concluded that the disputed account of the training, together with the technical and complex evidence, would be better examined orally than through affidavits alone. He directed that the existing statement of grounds and statements of opposition would serve as the pleadings, with the affidavit evidence already filed forming part of the evidence. Deponents may be cross-examined, and any party may call additional witnesses to give evidence in person. No additional pleadings were ordered.
The court also directed case management. The applicant was to prepare and circulate an issues paper to the respondents by 4 July 2024. The proceedings were listed before the judge for further case management on 12 July 2024 at 10.30am. The judgment, delivered on 6 June 2024, addresses the mode and management of the future hearing; it does not determine the substantive judicial review.