Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in a judicial review arising from findings by a fitness to practice tribunal concerning a veterinary surgeon, refuses to order further and better particulars of matters pleaded in the statement of opposition, on the grounds that: (a) it was not clear that the rules concerning further and better particulars of pleadings applied to judicial review applications; (b) in any event, the matters outlined in the statement of opposition were adequate to define the issues between the parties, and there was little room for surprise on the part of the applicant; and (c) the respondent admitted that the use of the term 'OxyContin' in the findings rather than 'Oxytocin' was in error, but that the error did not have any bearing on the findings in light of the totality of the evidence before it.
Judicial review - application for further and better particulars of matters in statement of opposition - application to quash findings by fitness to practice committee - dispensation of medicines in respect of animals not under the care of the vet - finding of professional misconduct - allegation by vet that finding of dispensing strong medicine without supervision was erroneous - findings in relation to 'OxyContin' rather than 'Oxytocin' - jurisdiction to order replies to particulars - O. 84, r. 22(5), RSC - whether applicant would be taken by surprise if particulars not replied to - whether error in name of drug arose through 'mala fides'.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now