1. Introduction
This judgment concerns the High Court’s supervision of professional disciplinary sanctions under section 70 of the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005, as amended. The Health and Social Care Professionals Council, commonly known as CORU, sought confirmation of sanctions imposed on a registered physiotherapist following findings of professional misconduct concerning public statements about COVID-19 and associated government measures.
The central legal issue was not whether the Court would independently have selected the same sanctions. It was whether there was any “good reason” not to confirm the Council’s decision within the meaning of section 70(3). The Court reaffirmed that confirmation proceedings are distinct from a statutory appeal: intervention is justified by serious defects in legality, procedural fairness, factual or legal reasoning, or regulatory reasonableness—not merely by disagreement with the regulator’s assessment.
The decision also illustrates the consequences of failing to comply with an existing professional remediation requirement. The Court confirmed a suspension linked to compliance with an earlier ethics and professionalism course condition, together with a restriction on invoking professional status when making specified public statements.
2. Background and Disciplinary History
The earlier proceedings
An earlier complaint concerned statements made by the physiotherapist in public during 2020 about COVID-19 and related public health measures. The Professional Conduct Committee, or PCC, made findings of professional misconduct on 5 January 2024.
On 1 July 2024, O’Higgins J confirmed the Council’s resulting decision. The sanctions included censure and conditions requiring the physiotherapist to undertake and successfully complete an approved course in professionalism and ethics, provide evidence of compliance when requested, and bear the associated costs.
The Council identified a suitable course on 12 September 2024 and allowed 12 months for completion. According to the evidence before the Court, the requirement remained unfulfilled when the present application was heard.
The subsequent inquiry
Three further complaints concerned public statements made during July 2021 to July 2022 and January to March 2024. The PCC heard the complaints over four sitting days between January and March 2026.
The physiotherapist neither attended nor was represented. Before proceeding, the PCC satisfied itself that the inquiry papers had been served and considered whether it was appropriate to continue in her absence. Her correspondence demonstrated awareness of the proceedings, but made attendance conditional on matters including an “Éire Court of Record” and payment of €25,000 per day. The PCC declined to accommodate those conditions.
The PCC found professional misconduct established in respect of the first two complaints. It did not uphold the third complaint, principally because it could not be satisfied that anyone had watched or listened to the interviews concerned. It recommended censure and further registration conditions.
The Council’s sanction decision
At its meeting on 18 June 2026, the Council decided that suspension was also necessary. The judgment identifies the decision submitted for confirmation as the decision of 2 July 2026. The disciplinary package comprised:
- Censure.
- A condition restricting the physiotherapist from holding herself out as a physiotherapist or healthcare worker when publicly expressing specified views concerning COVID-19.
- Suspension until evidence was presented of compliance with the course requirement arising from the 2024 order.
The Council explained its departure from the PCC’s recommendation by reference to aggravating and mitigating factors and the objectives of public protection, professional standards, and confidence in both the profession and its regulatory system.
3. Statutory Framework: Appeal and Confirmation Are Different
Section 69 provides the registrant’s route to challenge a disciplinary direction by applying to the High Court for its cancellation. The physiotherapist was notified of the Council’s decision on 20 July 2026 but did not bring an application within the applicable 30-day period.
Where no such application is made, section 70 requires the Council to seek judicial confirmation of sanctions falling within that provision. Certain more minor sanctions are excepted. Under section 70(3), the Court must confirm the direction unless it sees “good reason” not to do so.
This creates neither an automatic administrative endorsement nor a fresh merits hearing. The Court retains an independent supervisory responsibility, but it does not replace the regulator’s assessment with its own merely because another outcome might also have been reasonable.
Drawing on the authorities, Barniville P identified the principal grounds capable of preventing confirmation:
- Procedural impropriety or irregularity.
- Failure to observe natural and constitutional justice.
- A serious and significant error of fact or law.
- A decision that no reasonable regulatory body could have reached on the evidence before it.
4. Summary of the Court’s Decision
The Court confirmed the Council’s decision and made the orders sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the originating motion. The confirmation application concerned the suspension and the condition governing the use of professional status in specified public commentary.
Barniville P found no procedural impropriety, breach of natural or constitutional justice, serious factual or legal error, or regulatory unreasonableness. The Council was entitled to impose the sanctions it had selected.
The physiotherapist’s replying affidavit did not establish any obstacle to confirmation. Her asserted sovereign status did not displace the statutory obligations arising from her registration, and her employment contract with the HSE did not exhaust her professional responsibilities.
Although the judgment explains that section 70 requires the Court to address costs, it does not record a specific costs disposition.
5. Precedents Cited and Their Influence
Medical Council v Lagun [2026] IEHC 624
This was the principal immediate authority. Barniville P referred to his judgment delivered on 20 July 2026, particularly paragraphs 34 and 35, where the earlier case law and applicable confirmation test had been summarised.
Its influence was direct: it supplied the formulation of the grounds for refusing confirmation, encompassing procedural defects, failures of constitutional fairness, serious factual or legal error, and decisions beyond the range open to a reasonable regulator.
The present judgment applied that approach under the 2005 Act. It therefore demonstrates continuity across analogous professional regulatory schemes, rather than the creation of a separate standard for physiotherapists.
Barniville P cited this judgment of Kelly P as authority for the distinction between confirmation jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. Its relevance lies in defining the Court’s institutional role: the Court supervises the legality and fundamental soundness of the disciplinary decision without conducting an ordinary appeal against it.
In the present case, that distinction prevented the confirmation application from becoming a general reconsideration of the complaints or the choice of sanction. It nevertheless left the Court responsible for identifying defects sufficient to constitute good reason against confirmation.
This further judgment of Kelly P was cited in support of the same non-appellate understanding of confirmation proceedings. Together with the other authorities, it reinforced that the Court exercises a particular statutory jurisdiction governed by established intervention criteria.
The judgment does not recount the factual circumstances of these earlier cases. Their significance here is doctrinal: they establish the framework through which the Court assessed the Council’s decision, rather than providing factual parallels concerning COVID-19 commentary.
6. Analysis of the Legal Reasoning
A. Registration creates obligations independent of employment
The physiotherapist argued that her obligations were confined to those arising under her HSE employment contract and that regulatory control over activities outside working hours infringed her constitutional rights.
The Court rejected that argument. A person whose name appears on the professional register is subject to the 2005 Act. Employment obligations and statutory professional obligations arise from different sources; the existence of one does not extinguish the other.
The judgment therefore rejects a categorical immunity for conduct outside employment hours. It should not, however, be read as holding that every aspect of a registrant’s private life is regulable. The case concerned conduct already subjected to a professional disciplinary process and conditions connected with professional status.
B. Non-attendance did not establish procedural unfairness
The PCC expressly considered service and whether to proceed without the physiotherapist. Her correspondence demonstrated awareness of the inquiry, and her proposed conditions did not require the PCC to postpone the proceedings indefinitely.
For the High Court application, no affidavit of service was available. Nevertheless, the physiotherapist expressly acknowledged awareness of the application in her replying affidavit and responded to it. The Court considered that sufficient to proceed in the circumstances, also noting that the application could be made ex parte.
The reasoning was fact-specific. It does not establish that proof of service is generally unnecessary. Rather, actual acknowledgment of notice supplied a sufficient basis in this particular statutory application.
The Court also rejected the assertion that the physiotherapist had lacked notice of the 2024 confirmation hearing. Her then solicitors had been notified in advance, and there was no evidence that they had failed to communicate with her.
C. The Council could depart from the PCC’s recommendation
The PCC recommended censure and additional conditions. The Council added suspension and explained why it considered that stronger response necessary, appropriate, and proportionate.
The Court accepted that the Council was entitled to make that decision. The important point is not simply that a different sanction was available: the Council provided reasons for its departure, addressed aggravation and mitigation, and connected the sanction to recognised regulatory objectives.
Those reasons included its assessment of the physiotherapist’s attitude towards regulation. The Council referred to remarks anticipating that she would “probably be struck off” and regarded the conduct as showing contempt for the regulatory process.
Some chronological caution is necessary. The judgment records the Council’s assessment that conduct occurred in the face of earlier censure and conditions, but it also dates the later complaints’ underlying conduct to 2021–2022 and early 2024, before the July 2024 confirmation order. It is therefore unsafe to describe all the proven statements as breaches committed after that order.
D. Suspension was linked to remediation
The suspension was not for a fixed number of months and was not removal from the register. Its endpoint depended on presentation of evidence showing compliance with the earlier course condition.
This structure connected the restriction on practice with an outstanding remedial obligation. The physiotherapist could bring the suspension to an end through demonstrated compliance, but the absence of a fixed calendar endpoint meant that continued non-compliance could prolong it.
The underlying 2024 conditions required successful completion and evidence of compliance, not merely an intention to enrol. The judgment should therefore not be read as allowing the suspension to end simply upon expressing willingness to attend a course.
E. The public-commentary condition was not a general prohibition on criticism
The confirmed condition concerned holding oneself out as a physiotherapist or healthcare worker when publicly discussing the Government’s handling of COVID-19 or the efficacy or necessity of related public health guidelines.
Its wording matters. It did not impose a blanket prohibition on expressing views about COVID-19 or criticising government policy. It restricted the association of specified commentary with professional healthcare status.
Equally, this judgment does not provide a comprehensive constitutional analysis of professional speech restrictions. The Court rejected the constitutional assertions actually advanced and found no confirmation-stage defect. It did not formulate a general test governing every restriction on healthcare professionals’ public expression.
F. Proven and unproven allegations remained distinct
The third complaint was not established. Its failure is important because it demonstrates that non-participation did not relieve the disciplinary process of the need for sufficient evidence.
The explanation concerning the absence of an established audience must nevertheless remain tied to that complaint. The judgment does not establish a universal rule that every professional misconduct allegation involving online material requires proof that an identified person accessed it.
7. Potential Impact
-
Confirmation applications: The decision reinforces the established distinction between statutory confirmation and appeal, while preserving meaningful judicial scrutiny of legality and fairness.
-
Reasoned sanction decisions: Regulators departing from disciplinary committee recommendations should explain both the departure and the relationship between the sanction and legitimate regulatory objectives.
-
Non-compliance with remediation: Failure to fulfil an existing educational condition can have serious practical consequences, including a suspension linked to demonstrated compliance.
-
Professional status in public debate: The case illustrates a targeted condition addressing the use of professional credentials rather than a comprehensive prohibition on public participation.
-
Registrant participation: Actual notice and a fair opportunity to participate remain central; refusal to engage on acceptable terms does not necessarily prevent proceedings from continuing.
Its principal precedential significance is confirmatory rather than revolutionary. It applies an established supervisory standard to a particular disciplinary record and sanction package.
8. Complex Concepts Simplified
- Confirmation jurisdiction
- The Court checks whether a disciplinary direction has a sufficiently serious defect to prevent it taking effect through judicial confirmation. It does not ordinarily rehear the case.
- Natural and constitutional justice
- Basic procedural fairness, including appropriate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond.
- Regulatory unreasonableness
- A decision falling outside the range that a reasonable professional regulator could reach on the evidence—not simply a decision with which the Court disagrees.
- Censure
- A formal disciplinary expression of disapproval.
- Remedial condition
- A requirement intended to address professional shortcomings, such as completing an ethics course.
- Ex parte application
- An application that may be made without requiring the other party’s attendance. Here, the Court also considered the physiotherapist’s written response.
9. Conclusion
The High Court confirmed the sanctions because the disciplinary process disclosed no defect satisfying the established grounds for refusing confirmation. The judgment reinforces that professional registration carries statutory duties independent of employment arrangements, and that unfulfilled remediation requirements can support significant restrictions on practice.
Its broader lesson is one of structured judicial supervision: regulators must act fairly, reasonably, and with adequate reasons, but confirmation proceedings do not invite the Court to substitute its preferred disciplinary outcome.