- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Health and Social Care Professionals Council v Stack Rivas (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Regulatory Council applied under section 70 of the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005 for confirmation of sanctions imposed on the Respondent, a registered physiotherapist. The sanctions included suspension of registration until completion of an approved ethics and professionalism course previously ordered by the High Court, and a restriction on presenting herself publicly as a physiotherapist or healthcare worker when expressing views on COVID-19 measures. [1][2][3]
The Respondent had previously been censured and made subject to conditions following findings of professional misconduct concerning public statements about COVID-19 and related public health measures. She did not complete the required course. [4][5][6]
Further complaints led to an inquiry before the Professional Conduct Committee. The Respondent did not attend or appear by representation, although the Committee found that she had been served and proceeded in her absence. The Committee found professional misconduct in respect of two complaints, but not the third, and recommended further sanctions. [7][8][9][10]
The Regulatory Council subsequently imposed censure, the public-expression restriction, and suspension pending evidence of completion of the course. The Respondent did not apply under section 69 to cancel the direction, so the Council was required to seek confirmation under section 70. [11][12][13][14]
The Respondent was served with the application but did not attend the hearing. The Court proceeded after finding that she had acknowledged awareness of the application. [15][16]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should confirm the Regulatory Council’s disciplinary decision under section 70(3) of the 2005 Act. [17][18]
- Whether there was any procedural impropriety, denial of natural or constitutional justice, serious error, or other good reason not to confirm the decision. [19][20]
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent’s Arguments
- The Respondent asserted that her obligations were limited to those in her employment contract with the HSE and that regulation of conduct outside working hours violated her sovereign and constitutional rights. [21]
- She claimed that she had not known about the earlier High Court application and would have attended to assert her constitutional rights had she known. [22]
- She also claimed that she had received the present application papers only shortly before the hearing. [22]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Medical Council v Lagun [2026] IEHC 624 | The applicable section 70 confirmation test. | The Court adopted the test requiring confirmation unless there is procedural impropriety, a failure of natural or constitutional justice, a serious error, or a decision that no reasonable regulatory body could have made. [23][19] |
| Medical Council v M.A.G.A [2016] IEHC 779 | The Court’s role on a professional regulatory confirmation application is statutory and non-appellate. | The Court relied on the case in explaining that it was not acting as an appellate tribunal. [24] |
| Medical Council v Lohan-Mannion [2017] IEHC 401 | The same non-appellate approach to confirmation applications. | The Court cited it as confirming that the Court exercises a statutory jurisdiction rather than hearing an appeal from the regulator. [24] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Section 70 required the Regulatory Council to apply for confirmation because the Respondent had not brought an application under section 69 to cancel the direction. Under section 70(3), the Court had to confirm the direction unless it saw good reason not to do so. [25][17][18][14]
The Court emphasised that the application was not an appeal. Its task was to apply the statutory confirmation jurisdiction and the established test concerning procedural fairness, serious error, and the reasonableness of the regulator’s decision. [23][19][24]
The Court rejected the Respondent’s claims based on sovereignty, employment status, and constitutional rights. As a registered physiotherapist, she was subject to the 2005 Act and the regulatory obligations applying to registered healthcare professionals. [16][26]
The Court also rejected the complaint concerning the earlier confirmation hearing. The Respondent had been represented by solicitors who had received notice and relevant correspondence, and there was no evidence that they had failed to communicate with her. [27][28]
After considering the material, submissions, and replying affidavit, the Court found no procedural impropriety, irregularity, breach of natural or constitutional justice, serious error, or other error. It also found that the Council’s decision was one that a reasonable regulatory body could make on the evidence. [29][20]
Holding and Implications
The Regulatory Council’s decision was confirmed. The Court found no good reason not to confirm it and made the orders sought, including the sanctions concerning censure, registration suspension, course completion, and public representations as a physiotherapist or healthcare worker. [30][12][31][32]
The direct effect was that the disciplinary sanctions remained operative against the Respondent. The decision applied the existing statutory confirmation framework and did not establish any new precedent.
Alert