PCO Manufacturing Ltd. v. Irish Medicines Board

Factual and Procedural Background

The Respondent (“the Board”) was established under the Irish Medicines Act 1995 and is the competent authority for deciding applications to import, market, or sell medicinal products under relevant EU directives. The Appellant (“Appellant”) regularly submitted applications to the Board for product authorisations and renewals. By November 1998, fifty-two applications (thirty-two for authorisations and twenty for renewals) remained undetermined. Alleging undue delay, the Appellant obtained leave on 30 November 1998 to seek judicial review, including (i) mandamus compelling immediate determinations, (ii) mandamus requiring an expedited procedure, (iii) declaratory relief, and (iv) damages for lost profits.

The Board filed a statement of opposition and an extensive affidavit from Witness A, its Chief Executive. Further affidavits were exchanged, and authorisations for all outstanding products were ultimately granted. The Appellant then obtained leave to amend its pleadings to expand the damages claim (approximately £635,523).

Subsequently, the Appellant applied for the liability issues (mandamus/declaration) to be heard before the damages claim, while the Board cross-moved for the entire matter to proceed by plenary hearing. On 4 April 2000, Judge Kelly ordered that the proceedings be converted to plenary form, treating the amended judicial-review grounds as a statement of claim and the amended opposition as a defence, and declined to order separate trials. The Appellant appealed that decision to the present Court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to order a separate (split) hearing on liability and damages.
2. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to adjourn the judicial-review proceedings to a plenary hearing and convert the pleadings accordingly.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• A separate hearing on liability would be more efficient and economical, potentially avoiding the need for extensive evidence on damages if liability were not established.
• The High Court lacked jurisdiction to convert judicial-review proceedings into plenary proceedings in the absence of an express rule permitting that course.

Respondent's Arguments

• Determining liability and damages together was just and convenient because the factual matrix (timing, processing of each application, and causation) was interwoven and would require the same witnesses.
• The High Court possessed inherent power to direct that the proceedings continue in plenary form once the nature and complexity of the issues became clear.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that deciding whether to separate issues is a discretionary exercise guided by considerations of justice, convenience, and efficient use of resources (Millar). It examined the nature of the Appellant’s claims and found that:

• The alleged delay required an inquiry into each individual application, necessitating oral evidence, discovery, and potential cross-examination.
• Any damages assessment would likely recall the same witnesses, offering little, if any, procedural economy if the issues were separated.
• Judge Kelly had reviewed comprehensive documentation and heard detailed submissions before declining a split trial; this was a proper and informed exercise of discretion.
• Regarding jurisdiction, although the Superior Court Rules do not expressly provide for converting judicial-review proceedings into a plenary action, the High Court possesses implicit or inherent power to direct appropriate procedure once all parties are heard, especially when oral evidence and cross-examination are required.
• Both parties accepted in the appellate hearing that a plenary format was the appropriate procedural vehicle if legally permissible, supporting the High Court’s decision.

Applying the deference principles from Comet Food Machinery and Vella v Morelli, the Court held that there was no basis to interfere with the High Court’s discretionary order.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED. The High Court order converting the proceedings to plenary hearing and refusing a split trial is affirmed.

Implications: The decision confirms that Irish courts retain broad discretionary power over case management, including converting judicial-review proceedings to plenary form where factual complexity demands oral evidence. It underscores the appellate reluctance to disturb such discretionary orders absent clear error, and it signals that split trials will be ordered only where genuine procedural efficiencies are demonstrable.