Discovery in Judicial Review with Factual Complexity: Relevance, Necessity and Alternative Means

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the High Court of Ireland’s decision in Abdelaatti v College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland & Ors ([2025] IEHC 200), delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Simons on 9 April 2025. The case arises from a judicial review challenge brought by Dr. Ahmed Abdelaatti against the College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, the Medical Council, the Minister for Health and the Attorney General. Dr. Abdelaatti contends that, having completed six years of specialist anaesthesiology training under the College’s supervision, he is entitled to the same Certificate of Satisfactory Completion of Specialist Training (CSCST) as scheme‐trained doctors. The respondents deny that the College can grant a CSCST to non‐scheme trainees and maintain that two distinct certificates (CSCST and Certificate of Specialist Doctor, or CSD) serve different purposes under Directive 2005/36/EC.

Two interlocutory issues arose for determination:

A motion for discovery of documents (the scope, relevance and necessity of which were disputed);
A motion for further and better particulars and the incidence of costs.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that:

The governing legal test for discovery in judicial review proceedings is identical to that in plenary civil proceedings (relevance and necessity), although orders for discovery are less frequent in judicial review because factual disputes are often limited;
Where a judicial review engages substantial factual issues—here, equivalence of self-guided training to the approved Specialist Anaesthesiology Training (SAT) Programme—discovery of training records is appropriate;
Discovery must be confined to categories that are both relevant and necessary and not unduly oppressive. The Court ordered discovery of three refined categories:

Hospital training records for the period February 2016 to July 2022;
The December 2021 application and supporting documents submitted to the Medical Council for specialist registration;
Revenue Employment Detail Summaries and contracts of employment with Irish hospitals over the last five years.

In relation to further and better particulars, the College succeeded and is entitled to its costs, as the applicant did not secure a binding waiver of costs when particulars were delivered.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Tobin v Minister for Defence [2019] IESC 57: Defines relevance by reference to the pleadings and emphasizes “necessity” only where documents are critical to resolve pleaded issues.
O’Brien v Red Flag Consulting Ltd [2021] IECA 172: Echoes Tobin’s approach to relevance and necessity.
Fitzwilton Ltd v Mahon [2006] IEHC 48: Affirms that judicial review discovery follows the same principles as civil proceedings, albeit applied less often.
Flynn v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2024] IEHC 687: Reaffirms that discovery rules are identical in judicial review and plenary, but less frequent in the former.
Recorded Artists Actors Performers v Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd [2025] IEHC 119: Distinguishes discovery of documents already in the moving party’s possession.
IBB Internet Services Ltd v Motorola Ltd [2015] IECA 282: “Entire purpose” of discovery is to ensure the requesting party knows what documents exist; possession of some documents does not bar discovery.
Egan v Castlerea Co-Operative Livestock Mart Ltd [2023] IECA 240: Alternative means to discovery must be effective and proportionate; mere existence of alternatives is not decisive.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court began by reaffirming that “relevance” and “necessity” are judged against the pleadings. It rejected any special, stricter test for judicial review. Empirically, discovery is ordered less frequently in judicial review because issues tend to be legal rather than factual; but where, as here, the challenge is to the very structure of a statutory regime, significant factual disputes justify discovery.

The Court addressed two contested aspects:

Judicial Review vs Plenary Discovery: No different legal test applies. Where material facts are in dispute, judicial review may require the same degree of factual inquiry as plenary proceedings.
Alternative Means: The applicant argued that self-exhibited documents obviate the need for discovery. The Court held that only independent, complete sources (e.g. public registers) can replace discovery. Self-selected exhibits do not guarantee full disclosure.

Applying these principles, the Court truncated the broad categories sought by the respondents to those necessary to address:

The core dispute over the equivalence of the applicant’s training;
The applicant’s claimed adverse effect and entitlement to CSCST;
The constitutional equality and damages claims hinging on comparative income data.

3.3 Impact

This decision clarifies two key points for future judicial review cases:

Discovery in judicial review is governed by the standard civil test; the distinction lies in practical frequency, not in principle.
An applicant’s claim that substantial factual issues exist—particularly in challenges to regulatory or accreditation schemes—may justify fuller discovery, including third‐party records held by the applicant.

Practitioners should ensure that:

Pleadings clearly identify the factual disputes justifying discovery;
Discovery categories are tailored to the precise issues in dispute;
Offers of costs compromise on interlocutory issues are carefully recorded in binding forms.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Certificate of Satisfactory Completion of Specialist Training (CSCST): A formal certificate awarded to doctors who complete an approved training programme (e.g. SAT Programme) under Directive 2005/36/EC.
Certificate of Specialist Doctor (CSD): A separate certification evidencing that the holder meets minimum EU qualification standards; distinct from the domestic CSCST.
Judicial Review vs Plenary Proceedings: Judicial review challenges the legality of administrative decisions; plenary proceedings are full civil actions. Both share the same discovery test, but discovery is less common in judicial review because disputes are usually legal rather than factual.
Relevance and Necessity: "Relevant" documents can logically affect any matter in issue; "necessary" documents are those without which a party cannot properly present or defend its case.

5. Conclusion

Abdelaatti v College of Anaesthesiologists establishes that discovery in judicial review is not a diluted process: it adheres to the same standards as civil litigation. Where a review engages substantial factual disputes—especially in systemic challenges to professional‐regulation regimes—courts will order targeted discovery of documents essential to resolve those disputes. The judgment also underscores the need for precise drafting of discovery categories and careful negotiation of interlocutory costs offers. As a guiding precedent, this decision will shape procedural strategy in future high‐stakes judicial review challenges.