A BID BY 25 dentists to block the Health Service Executive (HSE) from applying cutbacks in free dental treatments for medical card holders has been thrown out by the High Court.
Ms Justice Mary Irvine refused them injunctions restraining the HSE from unilaterally varying the Dental Treatment Services Scheme ahead of a High Court challenge to it in December next.
The judge ruled that should their case succeed, any losses suffered by them between now and then could be quantified and compensated for by way of damages.
The dentists are among almost 60 throughout the country who are suing the HSE for breach of contract on the basis the cutbacks will devastate their practices.
Many have been dependent on the scheme for 30 per cent to 90 per cent of their income.
Two dentists have already been granted interlocutory injunctions restraining the introduction of the scheme in their case pending the trial, which is set to begin on December 7th.
Mark Connaughton, who appeared with Eamon Marray for the HSE, had told the court that the outcome of the earlier case would also decide the legal issues of all the others.
Ms Justice Irvine said that while the dentists made the case that they were likely to have to close their practices as a result of reduced income under the scheme, there was no principle of law which established that insolvency or going out of business could not be adequately remedied by an award of damages.
She rejected submissions that when considering whether or not damages were an adequate remedy that she had to take into account matters such as potential redundancies of staff within dental practices should she refuse the injunctions.
“Harsh as it may appear, it is only the plaintiffs who are entitled to damages for any breach of contract on the part of the HSE,” Ms Justice Irvine said.
“And, regrettable as it may be that a number of them may have to let staff go, the effect of the alleged breach of contract on third parties is not a matter which can be taken into account when considering whether damages are an adequate remedy.”
Ms Justice Irvine said she was not satisfied the plaintiffs had proved that their practices were likely to terminate for any significant period between now and the outcome of the trial.
She said evidence presented to the court indicated a lack of clarity in relation to the economic position of the dentists.
It seemed an inescapable conclusion that at least some of them had not been asked to approve the content of affidavits placed before the court on their behalf, Ms Justice Irvine added.