Summary of Judgment — Judge Cregan

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff was dismissed by The Hospital for gross misconduct in or about January 2023 and appealed to a Disciplinary Appeal Panel ("DAP"). The Plaintiff challenged one member of the first DAP for objective bias and succeeded in the Court of Appeal. A second DAP convened and heard evidence on 13 December 2025. The Plaintiff commenced these High Court proceedings on 6 January 2026 seeking injunctions and declarations, principally that members of the DAP should stand down and that a named member (Defendant 2) was disqualified for objective bias. The Hospital and the DAP parties engaged in affidavit exchanges and hearings. On 3 February 2026 two DAP members (Defendant 1 and Defendant 3) resigned; Defendant 2 gave an undertaking she would not serve on any new DAP. The High Court (Judge Cregan) previously delivered an ex tempore judgment striking out the Plaintiff's proceedings as moot. This judgment addresses two further issues: (1) the Plaintiff's request that affidavits sworn by Defendant 1 be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions ("DPP") for alleged perjury; and (2) whether two family members (Family Member A and Family Member B) committed contempt of court at the hearing on 20 February 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should refer Defendant 1's affidavits to the DPP for alleged perjury.
2. Whether Family Member A and Family Member B committed contempt in the face of the court during the hearing on 20 February 2026 and, if so, what sanctions should be imposed.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff argued that Defendant 1 lied on affidavit and that the affidavits should be referred to the DPP for perjury.
• The Plaintiff contended the proceedings were not moot and sought continuation to obtain declarations regarding Defendant 2's alleged objective bias.

Defendants' and The Hospital's Arguments

• The defendants submitted the proceedings were moot after the resignation of two DAP members and Defendant 2's undertaking not to sit on any new DAP.
• On the DPP referral, Defendant 1 denied dishonesty and argued the Plaintiff's assertions were unfounded; counsel replied to the Plaintiff's submissions at the hearing.
• The Hospital sought to be joined as a notice party and participated in submissions; its solicitor (Attorney Mallon) opened an affidavit and exhibits at the hearing.

Family Members' Submissions (Contempt Hearing)

• Family Member A argued the Plaintiff was unjustly imprisoned and had been denied constitutional rights; she also complained about the court's treatment and the joinder of The Hospital.
• Family Member B (a solicitor) argued the striking out was an abuse of power and contested the court's actions; both family members relied on perceived injustices concerning the Plaintiff's imprisonment as part of their explanations.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed each issue as follows:

• Mootness and relief sought: The court reaffirmed that the Plaintiff's core objective (removal of existing DAP members and formation of a new panel) had effectively been achieved because two members resigned and the remaining member (Defendant 2) undertook not to serve on any new DAP. Continuing the proceedings would therefore be pointless and a misuse of court time and resources.
• Referral to the DPP: The court refused the Plaintiff's application to refer Defendant 1's affidavits to the DPP for several stated reasons drawn from interlocutory procedure and credibility assessment in the text: (a) contested affidavits in interlocutory proceedings do not warrant findings of perjury absent a plenary trial and cross-examination; (b) the proceedings had been struck out as moot, so there would be no cross-examination; (c) the court considered the issue subsidiary and lacking merit; (d) the Plaintiff's pattern of accusing multiple participants of lying undermined his credibility; and (e) the court found Defendant 1's account (that chaotic scenes prevented explanation of reconvening) to be plausible.
• Contempt assessment: The court accepted established common-law principles (as explained in Walsh v Minister for Justice) that maintaining order in the courtroom is essential and that contempt in the face of the court may be dealt with summarily where necessary. The court found that Family Member A and Family Member B repeatedly shouted, refused to obey directions, interrupted proceedings during Attorney Mallon's application to join The Hospital as a notice party, and continued after repeated requests to desist. Their conduct materially disrupted and derailed the hearing, justified immediate invocation of contempt jurisdiction, and satisfied the elements of contempt in the face of the court.
• Sanctioning and aggravation: The court considered prior warnings, repeated past behaviour, the professional status of Family Member B (a solicitor), and prior incidents involving the family. Applying the authority cited and assessing proportionality and deterrence, the court concluded custodial sentences were appropriate.
• Professional disciplinary referral and future directions: Because of Family Member B's conduct and prior history, the court decided to forward specified judgments and this judgment to the relevant disciplinary committee (Law Society). The court also signalled an intention to consider restricting in-person attendance of three family members at future hearings (permitted only remotely) and invited written submissions within a fixed time if they objected.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING:

• The court refused the Plaintiff's application to refer Defendant 1's affidavits to the DPP for perjury.
• The court found Family Member A and Family Member B guilty of contempt in the face of the court for their conduct on 20 February 2026 and sentenced each to two weeks' imprisonment.
• The court ordered that certain papers (specified prior judgments and this judgment) be sent to the Law Society's relevant disciplinary committee concerning Family Member B.
• The court joined The Hospital as a notice party to the proceedings.
• The court indicated it is considering a direction to require Family Member A, Family Member B and Family Member C to attend future hearings remotely only and invited written submissions against such an order within three weeks.

Implications:

• Direct effect: The Plaintiff's request to involve the DPP was dismissed; two family members were convicted of contempt and sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment each; a professional disciplinary referral will be made; The Hospital was joined as a notice party; and restrictions on in-person attendance of specified family members may follow after consideration of submissions.
• Precedential effect: The judgment applies established contempt principles (notably as explained in Walsh v Minister for Justice) to the facts. The court did not purport to create new law beyond applying settled principles and made factual findings particular to the conduct described.