Van Eeden-v- The Medical Council & Ors (Approved) [2023] IECA 230 (06 October 2023)

Van Eeden-v- The Medical Council & Ors (Approved) [2023] IECA 230 (06 October 2023)

The disciplinary inquiry by the Medical Council is not barred by res judicata or autrefois acquit as the allegations are distinct from the criminal charges; the Medical Practitioners Act, 2007 and its application do not contravene Articles 34, 37, 38, or 40.1 of the Constitution; the amendment application to introduce Article 38 challenge was properly refused due to lateness, lack of clarity, and prejudice to the defendants; and the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process as all claims could have been made in prior judicial review.

Citation
[2023] IECA 230
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Samuel Van Eeden; Defendant/respondent: The Medical Council; Defendant/respondent: Ireland; Defendant/respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fitness to Practice, Res Judicata, Equality Before the Law, Abuse of Process, Amendment of Pleadings, Administration of Justice
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Professional Regulation Fitness to Practice Res Judicata Equality Before the Law Abuse of Process Amendment of Pleadings +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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Van Eeden

Plaintiff/appellant

The Medical Council

Defendant/respondent

Ireland

Defendant/respondent

The Attorney General

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disciplinary inquiry by Medical Council is barred by res judicata/autrefois acquit due to prior acquittal on criminal charges
  2. 2 Whether Part 8 of the Medical Practitioners Act, 2007 or its application is unconstitutional under Articles 34, 37, 38, and 40.1 of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the Medical Council usurps judicial powers

Ratio Decidendi

The disciplinary inquiry by the Medical Council is not barred by res judicata or autrefois acquit as the allegations are distinct from the criminal charges; the Medical Practitioners Act, 2007 and its application do not contravene Articles 34, 37, 38, or 40.1 of the Constitution; the amendment application to introduce Article 38 challenge was properly refused due to lateness, lack of clarity, and prejudice to the defendants; and the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process as all claims could have been made in prior judicial review.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal of amendment application to plead Article 38 challenge
  • Reliefs sought in plenary summons refused