HSE v O'Sullivan (Approved) [2023] IESC 11 (10 May 2023)

HSE v O'Sullivan (Approved) [2023] IESC 11 (10 May 2023)

The Supreme Court held that the CEO's power to suspend under the consultant contract must be exercised honestly, in good faith, and not arbitrarily or irrationally. The CEO must have a rational basis for believing there is an immediate and serious risk to patient safety. Where new evidence emerges that undermines the original basis for suspension, there is an obligation to review the necessity of continued suspension. The CEO is not bound by expert opinion but must provide clear reasons for departing from it. The Court affirmed that fair procedures are required, especially where suspension is prolonged or punitive in effect.

Citation
[2023] IESC 11
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Ray O'Sullivan; Respondent/appellant: Health Service Executive
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
10 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal order affirmed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Procedures in Public Employment, Suspension From Employment, Fair Procedures and Natural Justice, Implied Terms in Employment Contracts, Judicial Review of Administrative Action
Employment Law Administrative Law Health Law Contract Law Disciplinary Procedures in Public Employment Suspension From Employment Fair Procedures and Natural Justice Implied Terms in Employment Contracts +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ray O'Sullivan

Applicant/respondent

Health Service Executive

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CEO lawfully exercised the contractual power to suspend Professor O'Sullivan on administrative leave for alleged misconduct and risk to patient safety
  2. 2 What procedural safeguards and review obligations apply to such suspension under the consultant contract and public law
  3. 3 Whether the CEO was required to review and lift the suspension in light of new evidence (the O'Hare report)

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the CEO's power to suspend under the consultant contract must be exercised honestly, in good faith, and not arbitrarily or irrationally. The CEO must have a rational basis for believing there is an immediate and serious risk to patient safety. Where new evidence emerges that undermines the original basis for suspension, there is an obligation to review the necessity of continued suspension. The CEO is not bound by expert opinion but must provide clear reasons for departing from it. The Court affirmed that fair procedures are required, especially where suspension is prolonged or punitive in effect.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal order affirmed

Orders

  • Order of mandamus granted terminating Professor O'Sullivan's suspension and reinstating him as consultant effective from 23 December 2019
  • Disciplinary process to proceed before section 24 committee de novo