Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Hemat v. The Medical Council
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff, a registered medical practitioner, circulated a leaflet in October 2002 advertising his services in “integrated medicine.” Company A (the statutorily-created regulatory body for the medical profession) considered the leaflet to breach its Guide to Ethical Conduct and Behaviour (“the Ethical Guide”). Following a Fitness to Practise inquiry, the Plaintiff was found guilty of professional misconduct and his name was removed from the medical register for one month.
The Plaintiff commenced High Court proceedings alleging that the Ethical Guide operated as an anti-competitive ban on advertising. As a preliminary issue, the High Court was asked to decide whether Company A constituted an “association of undertakings” under national and EU competition law. The High Court (Judge McKechnie) held that it did not. The present appeal challenges that determination in the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Company A was, at the relevant time, an “association of undertakings” for the purposes of section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 and/or Article 81 EC (now Article 101 TFEU).
- Consequently, whether the Ethical Guide’s advertising restrictions constituted a decision of an association of undertakings capable of infringing competition law.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The majority of Company A’s 25-member council were practising doctors engaged in economic activity; therefore the body should be treated as an association of undertakings.
- Restricting doctors’ advertising directly influences market behaviour and is therefore an economic activity; Company A cannot evade competition law by labelling the restriction “ethical.”
- European Court of Justice (ECJ) authority (Wouters) shows that professional regulatory bodies can be associations of undertakings when they adopt rules connected with economic activity.
- The Ethical Guide lacked a clear statutory mandate to ban advertising; enforcement could not be justified solely as an exercise of public authority.
Respondent's Arguments
- Company A exercises statutory powers exclusively in the public interest—namely, protection of patients and maintenance of professional standards—and is therefore not an association of undertakings.
- The impugned advertising rules were adopted pursuant to an explicit statutory function to give ethical guidance (s. 69(2) of the governing Act), not to advance members’ commercial interests.
- Under ECJ jurisprudence (Sat Flug; Cali & Figli), activities connected with the exercise of public authority fall outside competition law, even if they have economic consequences.
- The Plaintiff bore a heavy onus to displace the presumption that a statutory regulator acts in the public interest; he failed to do so.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Höfner & Elser v. Macrotron (C-41/90) |
“Undertaking” covers any entity engaged in economic activity regardless of legal form or funding. |
Illustrates that competition rules apply if a body actually offers goods/services on a market—distinguished from Company A’s public-interest role. |
| Sat Fluggesellschaft v. Eurocontrol (C-364/92) |
Tasks connected with exercise of public authority are not economic in nature. |
Used to analogise Company A’s disciplinary and guidance functions to sovereign functions outside competition law. |
| Cali & Figli v. SEPG (C-342/95) |
Need to distinguish between exercise of official authority and commercial activity. |
Supported the view that Company A’s ethical regulation is an exercise of official authority. |
| Pavel Pavlov v. Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten (C-180/98 etc.) |
A body composed exclusively of self-employed professionals defending their economic interests may be an association of undertakings. |
Court noted difference: Company A was not exclusively composed of such professionals and had statutory public-interest duties. |
| Wouters v. Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten (C-309/99) |
Professional bodies can be associations of undertakings when adopting rules affecting economic activity. |
Distinguished: unlike the Dutch Bar, Company A was required to act solely in the public interest and to observe statutory criteria. |
| Donovan v. ESB [1997] 3 IR 570 |
Example of a trade association for comparison. |
Highlighted how Company A differs from typical trade bodies whose purpose is to protect members’ economic interests. |
| Philips v. Medical Council [1991] 2 IR 115 |
Medical Council’s statutory functions are for public, not professional, benefit. |
Relied upon to affirm that Company A acts in the public interest. |
| Kenny v. Dental Council [2004] IEHC 29 |
A similar professional regulator was held not to be an association of undertakings. |
Treated as persuasive domestic authority supporting the High Court’s conclusion. |
| Doulamis (C-445/05) |
Member-State advertising bans can be justified in the general interest without infringing competition law. |
Cited to show that restrictions on medical advertising may legitimately pursue public-health objectives. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Judge Fennelly, delivering judgment for the Supreme Court, undertook a two-stage analysis.
- Nature and Functions of Company A. The Court reviewed the Medical Practitioners Act 1978 and found that Company A’s statutory purpose is the regulation of medical education, registration and professional standards “in the public interest.” Even though a majority of its members were doctors, it was not a trade body representing private interests.
- Economic Activity Test. Drawing on ECJ jurisprudence, the Court emphasised that the decisive factor is whether the body engages in economic activity. Publishing and enforcing an ethical code—especially provisions aimed at protecting patients from misleading advertising—constituted an exercise of official authority, not the offering of services on a market.
- Composition Not Determinative. The Court rejected a “numbers game”; the mere presence of practitioners on the council does not convert it into an association of undertakings when acting under statutory mandate.
- Advertising Restrictions. While acknowledging that advertising has economic implications, the Court found that the impugned provisions targeted public-health concerns—preventing self-promotion that could mislead vulnerable patients—rather than the commercial interests of practitioners.
- Comparison with ECJ Cases. Cases such as Wouters and Pavel Pavlov were distinguished on the facts: those bodies were exclusively professional in composition and lacked an overriding statutory obligation to act in the public interest.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s ruling that Company A is not an “association of undertakings” for competition-law purposes.
Implications: The decision confines competition-law challenges to the Ethical Guide by confirming that statutory regulators acting exclusively in the public interest fall outside the scope of section 4 of the Competition Act 2002 and Article 101 TFEU. No new precedent was set; rather, existing Irish and EU principles were applied to the facts.
Click here to read the full judgment