McEvoy & anor v The Preliminary Proceedings Committee & anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicants, identified as the lawful husband and daughter of a patient hospitalised following a stroke, lodged a complaint with the Medical Council in June 2017 alleging professional misconduct and/or poor professional performance against two doctors involved in the treatment. The complaint concerned the treatment received in two hospitals and the resulting comatose and vegetative state of the patient since May 2012.

The Preliminary Proceedings Committee ("PPC") of the Medical Council reviewed the complaint, including extensive documentation and expert reports, and on 17th January 2019 formed an opinion that no further action was warranted. The Medical Council, after considering the PPC's opinion, confirmed this decision on 6th/7th February 2019, communicated as final to the applicants.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Medical Council's decision, applying for leave to issue proceedings. The application was heard on 18th July 2019 following directions issued in May 2019. The applicants also sought an order of mandamus directing the PPC to reconvene and reconsider the complaint, although this relief was deemed out of time under the relevant court rules.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether leave should be granted to issue judicial review proceedings to quash the Medical Council's decision of February 2019.
2. Whether an order of mandamus should be granted directing the PPC to reconvene and reconsider the complaint.
3. Whether the applicants’ challenge to the PPC's opinion of January 2019 is barred by time limits under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
4. Whether the PPC and Medical Council acted unlawfully, unreasonably, or with bias or bad faith in their handling of the complaint.
5. Whether the decision of the PPC and Medical Council was contrary to public policy or incompatible with constitutional or EU law provisions.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• The PPC failed to explicitly consider all relevant evidence, including the applicants' submissions and an expert clinical report allegedly in their possession but not furnished to the PPC.
• The decision to rely on the independent expert report was unreasonable and irrational, especially given the applicants’ extensive criticisms of that report.
• Allegations of bias and bad faith arose from inaccuracies on the Medical Council’s website regarding council members and the involvement of certain individuals in the decision-making process.
• The decisions were argued to be contrary to public policy and incompatible with statutory, constitutional, and EU law protections related to bodily integrity and offences against the person.

Respondents' Arguments

• All material before the PPC was considered, as confirmed in affidavits, and the letter communicating the decision indicated careful consideration of all relevant documents.
• The applicants failed to furnish the expert report they claimed to hold despite being requested to provide all relevant documentation.
• The PPC’s decision was bona fide, reasonable, and factually sustainable, and did not fly in the face of fundamental reason or common sense.
• Allegations of bias were refuted by affidavits explaining the administrative error on the website and confirming the absence of the individuals alleged to be biased from relevant decision-making meetings.
• The public policy and constitutional arguments related to events in 2012 and were outside the scope of the court’s review of the PPC and Medical Council’s statutory functions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the statutory framework under the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 governing the PPC and Medical Council’s functions, including the procedural steps for complaint consideration and decision-making. The court noted the extensive material before the PPC, including over thirteen hundred pages of documents and expert reports, and found that the PPC considered all relevant evidence available to it. The applicants’ failure to provide a medical report in their possession, despite being requested, meant the PPC could not be faulted for not considering it.

The court applied the established test for judicial review leave, requiring a prima facie case and an arguable ground for relief. It found that the PPC’s decision was bona fide, reasonable, and factually sustainable, consistent with the test set out in precedent. The court rejected the applicants’ criticisms of the expert report as matters of merit inappropriate for judicial review.

Allegations of bias and bad faith were dismissed based on affidavits explaining administrative errors and confirming that the individuals alleged to be biased did not participate in relevant decision-making. The court applied the objective test for perceived bias and found no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicants’ public policy and constitutional arguments were deemed to relate to events outside the scope of the PPC and Medical Council’s statutory functions and thus unsustainable as grounds for judicial review.

Procedurally, the court found that the applicants’ challenge to the PPC opinion was out of time and that no extension of time had been sought. However, the applicants could avail of differing High Court views on time limits to justify their application for leave regarding the Medical Council decision. Ultimately, the court concluded that the applicants did not demonstrate an arguable case entitling them to relief.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE to the applicants to issue judicial review proceedings against the respondents.

This refusal means that the Medical Council’s decision of February 2019, confirming no further action on the complaint, stands. The applicants’ attempt to compel the PPC to reconvene was also rejected as out of time. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reaffirms the application of established principles governing judicial review of professional regulatory decisions, including the limits of judicial scrutiny and the importance of procedural compliance.