- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
The Health And Social Care Professionals Council v ZY (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant, a statutory professional regulator, brought an application under s. 60 of the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005 seeking interim suspension of the Respondent radiographer’s registration, a prohibition on practice, and related notification and register-amendment orders pending the outcome of fitness to practise proceedings. [Para 21][Para 22] The application arose after a complaint was made concerning the Respondent’s conduct and performance, including allegations that he had not disclosed ongoing fitness to practise proceedings in the United Kingdom when applying for recognition, registration, and renewal in this jurisdiction. [Para 36][Para 38][Para 40][Para 42][Para 43] The Applicant also relied on information showing that the Respondent had been subject to interim suspension in the United Kingdom and later voluntarily removed from the United Kingdom register. [Para 39][Para 48][Para 56] The Respondent did not appear for the application, and the Court deemed service good and sufficient before proceeding. [Para 24][Para 68]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should make interim orders under s. 60 suspending the Respondent’s registration and prohibiting him from practising radiography to protect the public pending completion of fitness to practise proceedings. [Para 21][Para 22][Para 32][Para 33]
- Whether the ancillary notification, register-amendment, and liberty-to-apply orders sought by the Applicant were appropriate in the circumstances. [Para 22][Para 34][Para 94][Para 96]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland v N.O. [2026] IEHC 428 | Summarised the governing principles for s. 60 applications. [Para 71] | The Court adopted those principles as applicable to this application. [Para 71] |
| Medical Council v. P.Q. [2025] IEHC 390 | Also set out the relevant principles for interim protective orders. [Para 71] | The Court treated it as part of the existing framework governing the present application. [Para 71] |
| O'Ceallaigh v. An Bord Altranais [2000] 4 I.R. 54 | The paramount consideration is whether the order is necessary to prevent immediate danger to the public; Barron J. also identified the seriousness, strength, and sanction thresholds. [Para 74][Para 77][Para 80] | The Court applied those criteria and held that they were satisfied on the evidence before it. [Para 92][Para 93] |
| Medical Council v. F.C.M. [2018] IEHC 616 | Supported the proposition that the likely sanction in a serious case may be cancellation or another very serious sanction. [Para 80] | The Court relied on that principle when concluding that the allegations, if proved, could justify a very serious sanction. [Para 93] |
| Medical Council v. Whelan (Unreported, High Court, Morris J., 20 February 2001) | Suspension should be made only where no other order would protect the community. [Para 82] | The Court used this principle to justify interim suspension as appropriate in an exceptional case. [Para 93] |
| Casey v. Medical Council [1999] 2 I.R. 534 | Interim suspension is reserved for exceptional cases. [Para 82] | The Court concluded that the present matter was exceptional because of the seriousness of the allegations and public protection concerns. [Para 93] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by identifying the statutory framework under s. 60, which permits ex parte protective applications where suspension is considered necessary to protect the public pending fitness to practise steps. [Para 30][Para 32][Para 33] It then applied the principles from O'Ceallaigh and the later authorities: the Applicant had to be satisfied, and the Court itself had to be satisfied, that the complaint was serious, the case was strong, and the likely sanction in the event of adverse findings could be cancellation or another serious restriction. [Para 74][Para 77][Para 80][Para 81]
The Court accepted that the allegations were extremely serious, involving alleged deficiencies in conduct and competence as well as an alleged pattern of dishonesty through nondisclosure of United Kingdom proceedings and restrictions. [Para 65][Para 67][Para 93] It noted that the Respondent had not engaged with the process in this jurisdiction, had not appeared, and had offered no undertakings or evidence. [Para 66][Para 68][Para 84][Para 89] The Court also took account of the adverse impact on the Respondent’s reputation and livelihood, but held that those rights were outweighed by the need to protect the public and address patient-safety concerns. [Para 82][Para 85][Para 93]
Applying that balancing exercise, the Court found that the Applicant had properly considered the statutory criteria before bringing the motion and that the conditions for granting interim relief were met. [Para 92] It further concluded that the orders should remain in force until the complaint and inquiry process concluded, subject to liberty to apply to vary or discharge them. [Para 96]
Holding and Implications
GRANTED. The Court made the interim orders sought under s. 60, including suspension of the Respondent’s registration and the related protective and notification orders, to continue until completion of the complaint and inquiry process or further order of the Court. [Para 94][Para 96] The immediate effect was to prevent the Respondent from practising pending the outcome of the professional process; the decision was driven by public protection and did not determine the underlying allegations on their merits. [Para 89][Para 93]
Alert