Factual and Procedural Background
This was an ex tempore High Court application by a professional regulator for interim orders under section 60 of the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005 in relation to a registered occupational therapist. The regulator sought suspension of the Respondent’s registration, a prohibition on practising occupational therapy, and ancillary directions allowing notification of other bodies and amendment of the public register. [Para 22][Para 23][Para 28]
The Court was satisfied that the Respondent knew of the hearing and had received the papers, but had chosen not to attend or participate remotely. [Para 24][Para 25][Para 26]
The application arose from a complaint made to the regulator’s Preliminary Proceedings Committee concerning the Respondent’s conduct and professional performance, which were already the subject of fitness to practise proceedings in the United Kingdom. The complaint also alleged non-disclosure to the regulator in Ireland of those proceedings when renewing registration, lack of candour about employment in Ireland during an interim suspension, and an alleged alteration to the Irish register. [Para 31][Para 32][Para 33][Para 34]
The regulator became aware in February 2026 that the Respondent was subject to an interim suspension order in the United Kingdom, sought information from him, and later learned that he had completed Irish registration renewals without disclosing the overseas proceedings or restrictions. The Respondent eventually apologised and admitted non-disclosure, while also giving inconsistent accounts of his employment at The Hospital in Ireland. [Para 36][Para 39][Para 41][Para 42][Para 43][Para 46][Para 47][Para 48][Para 49][Para 67][Para 68][Para 69][Para 70][Para 71][Para 72][Para 75]
The United Kingdom tribunal panel had imposed an interim suspension order on 25 July 2025, later confirmed in January 2026, because of serious allegations about the Respondent’s conduct and the risk of repetition. [Para 36][Para 56][Para 57][Para 60]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the statutory threshold under section 60 of the 2005 Act was met so that interim suspension and practice-prohibition orders were necessary to protect the public. [Para 28][Para 92][Para 96][Para 97][Para 99][Para 104][Para 107]
- Whether the Court should also permit ancillary notification and register-amendment orders under section 60(3) and (4). [Para 23][Para 28]
- For how long any interim orders should remain in force, and whether liberty to apply should be granted. [Para 124][Para 125]
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Medical Council and PQ [2025] IEHC 390 |
Summarised the relevant principles for section 60 applications. [Para 92] |
The Court relied on it as part of the recent authority explaining the section 60 framework. [Para 92][Para 94] |
| Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland v N.O [2026] IEHC 428 |
Another recent judgment restating the same principles for interim regulatory applications. [Para 92] |
The Court cited it as a recent authority supporting the governing approach to public-protection applications. [Para 92][Para 94] |
| Health and Social Care Professionals Council v ZY [2026] IEHC 533 |
Recent authority on the applicable principles for section 60 relief. [Para 92] |
The Court used it to reinforce that the same public-protection principles governed this application. [Para 92][Para 94] |
| O'Ceallaigh v An Bord Altranais [2000] I.R. 54 |
The paramount consideration is whether the orders are necessary to prevent immediate danger to the public; the body and the Court must be satisfied the complaint is serious, the case is strong, and cancellation or another very serious sanction is likely. [Para 97][Para 99][Para 100][Para 101][Para 102] |
The Court applied these criteria directly and concluded they were met on the evidence before it. [Para 116][Para 117][Para 118][Para 119] |
| Medical Council v. F.C.M. [2018] IEHC 616 |
A serious sanction short of cancellation, including conditional registration or cessation from practice until conditions are met, may satisfy the threshold. [Para 102] |
The Court treated this as confirming that the likely sanction need not be cancellation alone if another very serious sanction is indicated. [Para 102][Para 119] |
| Medical Council v. Whelan |
An interim suspension should only be made where no other order will adequately protect the public. [Para 105] |
The Court cited it when emphasising that suspension is reserved for cases where lesser measures will not suffice. [Para 105][Para 107] |
| Casey v. Medical Council [1999] 2 I.R. 534 |
Interim suspension orders are reserved for exceptional cases. [Para 105] |
The Court relied on it in explaining why the balancing exercise requires restraint and why public protection must clearly justify the order. [Para 105][Para 107][Para 122] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first noted that section 60 permits an ex parte application where the regulator considers suspension necessary to protect the public, and that it also authorises notification of overseas professional bodies if such an order is made. [Para 28]
The Court then set out the governing principles: it has a wide discretion; the central question is public interest and public protection; it does not determine the underlying complaint or resolve factual disputes; and both the regulator and the Court must be satisfied that the complaint is serious, the case is strong, and a very serious sanction would likely follow if the allegations were proved. [Para 96][Para 97][Para 98][Para 99][Para 100][Para 101][Para 102][Para 104]
The Court emphasised that interim suspension is exceptional and should be used only where no lesser measure would adequately protect the public, while also balancing the Respondent’s rights to a good name and livelihood against the public interest in protection. [Para 105][Para 106][Para 107]
Applying those principles, the Court accepted that the regulator had real and legitimate public-protection concerns arising from the admitted non-disclosure of the United Kingdom proceedings, the allegations of altered registration information, and the issues surrounding employment in Ireland while subject to suspension abroad. The Court was careful not to make findings of fact on those disputed matters. [Para 111][Para 112][Para 114][Para 118]
The Court agreed that the complaint was serious, that the evidence was strong, and that any adverse inquiry outcome could lead to a very serious sanction, including cancellation of registration or another serious restriction. It also held that the public-protection balance decisively favoured granting the orders sought. [Para 117][Para 118][Para 119][Para 122]
Holding and Implications
THE APPLICATION WAS GRANTED. The Court ordered interim relief under section 60 in the terms sought by the regulator, to continue until the fitness to practise process concluded if such a process occurs. [Para 123][Para 124]
The Court also granted liberty to the Respondent to apply on 7 days’ notice, gave liberty to the regulator to apply if necessary, and reserved costs. The direct effect was to suspend the Respondent’s ability to practise pending the regulatory process; no broader precedent was created beyond the application of established section 60 principles. [Para 125][Para 107]