McKay v. Adelaide and Meath Hospital Dublin [2002] IEHC 74 (5 July 2002)

McKay v. Adelaide and Meath Hospital Dublin [2002] IEHC 74 (5 July 2002)

The post to which the plaintiff was appointed was in accordance with that approved by the second defendant; the addition of the paediatric medical on-call rota did not materially alter the approved post, as the minimum qualifications already required substantial paediatric experience. The plaintiff was validly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] IEHC 74
Parties
Plaintiff: Mary McKay; First Defendant: The Adelaide and Meath Hospital Dublin Incorporating The National Childrens’ Hospital; Second Defendant: Comhairle na nOspideal
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted; damages refused
Legal Topics
Consultant Appointment Approval, Hospital Administration, Job Description Compliance, Professional Registration
Administrative Law Employment Law Health Law Consultant Appointment Approval Hospital Administration Job Description Compliance Professional Registration

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary McKay

Plaintiff

The Adelaide and Meath Hospital Dublin Incorporating The National Childrens’ Hospital

First Defendant

Comhairle na nOspideal

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the post to which the plaintiff was appointed was the same as that approved by the second defendant
  2. 2 Whether the addition of duties (paediatric medical on-call rota) altered the approved post
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the manner in which she was treated

Ratio Decidendi

The post to which the plaintiff was appointed was in accordance with that approved by the second defendant; the addition of the paediatric medical on-call rota did not materially alter the approved post, as the minimum qualifications already required substantial paediatric experience. The plaintiff was validly appointed and is entitled to a declaration to that effect, but not to damages.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted; damages refused

Orders

  • Declaration that the plaintiff’s post is in accordance with that approved by the second defendant
  • No award of damages